Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Z Reserve Scheme

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he is now in a position to say whether the Z Reserve training scheme is to be continued in 1953.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on 25th November.

Mr. Beswick: Is it a rule of this House that Ministers only answer on those matters for which they have responsibility? Can we take it that the Secretary of State for War settles this matter, and not the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Birch: The matter is settled by the Cabinet.

Officers' Pensions

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what is the pension, today, of the widow, without private income, of an Army captain or Royal Naval or Royal Air Force lieutenant whose death was not due to his service; and what was the rate in 1852 and 1914 for the widow of an Army captain or a Naval lieutenant.

Mr. Birch: £90 a year, if the widow qualifies for Pensions Increase Acts additions. Otherwise it is £50 a year. The corresponding rate in 1852 and 1914 was £50.

Sir E. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend say when an announcement will be made about an improvement in these pensions, which announcement was promised before Christmas?

Mr. Birch: I cannot add to the answer which I gave on 19th November.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he will get himself into very serious trouble with hon. Members on both sides of the House if he does not keep his promise to make a statement about some improvement in this matter before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Birch: I am well aware of the feeling which it has aroused.

Sir E. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence by what estimated sum the £2,100,000, which will be the cost in the first year of raising the retired pay of officers who retired before 1st September, 1950, to the rates of those who retired on or after that date, will fall in the following year through death.

Mr. Birch: On the hypothesis stated in my hon. Friend's Question, about £65,000 at a very rough estimate.

Sir E. Keeling: As these officers are largely old or middle aged, does my hon. Friend agree that in subsequent years the decrease will be still more rapid?

Mr. Birch: Yes; obviously the decrease will increase and will be written off over a period of some 30 years.

Miss Ward: Has my hon. Friend got any answer from the Treasury? He promised last week to convey my views on this matter to the Treasury, and I should like to know whether he has heard from the Chancellor on this subject.

Mr. Birch: I did speak to my right hon. Friend, and I think he is very well aware of the hon. Lady's views on this matter.

Sir E. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence


whether he is aware that Royal Warrant 111 which applies the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, to officers who retired before 1st September, 1950, normally gives no benefit to single officers above the rank of captain or married officers above the rank of major; how many officers will benefit in the first year; and what total increase they will receive.

Mr. Birch: A number of officers in ranks above Army captain and major, who retired before September, 1950, on less than the standard rates of retired pay then obtaining, will receive the benefit referred to in this Question. As regards the latter part of the Question, the estimated number of officers concerned is 5,550 and the total increase they will receive is about £130,000.

N.A.A.F.I. (Parliamentary Questions)

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how far his Department is responsible for answering Questions relating to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.

Mr. Birch: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War answers Questions arising out of the policy of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, unless such matters are the sole concern of either the Admiralty or the Air Ministry.

Mr. Winterbottom: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that in view of the large sums of money spent by the serving men and women in these Institutes on the facilities, or lack of them, which are provided, it is highly desirable that one Department should be responsible for answering Questions on this subject, instead of making it necessary for hon. Members to play ring-a-roses with the other Service Departments in order to get an answer, which is the case at the moment?

Mr. Birch: I agree that there may have been misunderstandings, but the principle is, and always has been, that the War Office answers. My noble Friend's Department is not set up to deal with a great amount of administrative detail, and I think it will be generally agreed in the House that it would be wrong if the Department was made to do so.

Coronation (Uniforms)

Dr. Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what will be the regulations for the wearing of uniform by officers and men of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, both active and retired, when attending the Coronation of Her Majesty next year.

Mr. Birch: The Earl Marshal's Regulations about the wearing of uniform in the Abbey at the Coronation Ceremony were published in yesterday's London Gazette. The Service Departments will promulgate the dress for those taking part in the procession as soon as possible.

Dr. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend indicate whether some of the more decorative but now no longer valid uniforms, such as full dress, the frock coat and sword and so on, are likely to be regarded as uniform for those taking part in the Coronation other than in the procession?

Mr. Birch: I think that if my hon. Friend reads the Earl Marshal's Regulations he will see that they can be worn in the Abbey.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it intended that the men of the Army who will line the streets through which the procession passes will wear No. 1 dress on that occasion?

Mr. Birch: I hope there will be a comprehensive statement fairly soon. There are a lot of matters of detail about different regiments and so on, and it is thought better to issue all the orders and regulations at the same time. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will await them.

Regulars and National Service Men (Proportion)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to what extent the gradual decline in the number of long-service Regulars of the Army and the Royal Air Force has been arrested since October, 1951; and to what extent this has resulted in saving in excessive dilution and avoiding sending National Service men to the Middle and Far East.

Mr. Birch: The success of the new short-service Regular engagements in the Army and R.A.F. has resulted in maintaining the proportion of Regulars to National Service men in these two Services during the past year. It is hoped


that considerable numbers of these men will extend their engagements and thus maintain the proportion of Regulars of long service.

Mr. Lewis: I was waiting for the Minister to answer the last part of the Question. I have not had a reply to that. Could I have it?

Mr. Birch: As I indicated in my answer, the proportion is very much the same. The proportion of Regulars in the Air Force in the Far East and Middle East has slightly increased, and much the same applies to the Army.

Mr. Lewis: I should still like an answer to my Question. Does this mean a saving in National Service men in the Middle East and the Far East?

Mr. Birch: As I indicated, the proportion of National Service men has been maintained and there is no reason to think that there will be any increase.

Mr. Lewis: That is the point. Is the Minister aware of the fact that in the Election manifesto of the Tory Party—"Britain Strong and Free"—it was stated that if the Tory Party got back they would be able to make an improvement and stop sending National Service men overseas? Is it not about time the hon. Gentleman did something about it? My question is taken from the Tory Party manifesto.

Mr. Chetwynd: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how many of these Regulars have signed on straight from National Service?

Mr. Birch: I cannot give any figures without notice.

Armed Forces (Strength)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to what extent our fighting formations have been increased since October, 1951; how far these increases are due to the pruning of non-essential administrative units; and what was the total of men and women in the three services in October, 1951, and at the latest convenient stated date.

Mr. Birch: As regards the first part of the Question, I cannot add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 19th November. The increases which have been made have been effected by a variety of measures, including the most rigorous economies in administrative and

training units. At 1st October, 1951, there were some 840,000 men and women in the three Services: at 1st November, 1952, the comparable figure was some 873,000.

Deficiencies

Mr. Lewis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what marked deficiency there was in the numbers of young Regular officers, senior non-commissioned officers and technicians in October, 1951, in the Army and in the Royal Air Force; and to what extent this deficiency has been made up during the last 12 months.

Mr. Birch: In October, 1951, there were in both Services considerable deficiences in the categories referred to by the hon. Member. In October of this year, apart from a distinct improvement in the number of young Regular officers in the Army, these deficiencies still existed in relation to the total size of the Services.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister have a look at "Britain Strong and Free"?—because it is stated there quite categorically that when the Tory Party get back they will be able to put all these things right. They have been in office for over 12 months and it appears that they have done nothing about it.

Mr. Birch: A very great deal of progress has been made. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the teeth have increased in proportion to the tail of the Army, and the same is true of the Air Force.

Captain Pilkington: Is it not time that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) changed his gramophone record and paid some tribute to the magnificent achievements of this Government?

Mr. Birch: Personally, I think the more hon. Gentlemen opposite read "Britain Strong and Free" the better.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is it permissible for an hon. Member to direct a question across the Floor of the House to another hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: In form the question was addressed to me, but I am very glad that the responsibility of answering it was taken by somebody else.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Jamaica (International Bank Mission)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consult with representatives of the International Bank for Development and Reconstruction and of the Government of Jamaica so as to urge that the report of the Bank's recent mission to Jamaica shall be published either in full, or at least in respect of those parts which are not of a confidential nature as between the Bank and the Government.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): There is no need. The Bank intend to publish the Report.

British Guiana (Employment)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the serious increase in the number of unemployed persons in British Guiana, by comparison with a year ago; of the concern of the citizens at this increase; what steps he is taking to provide alternative employment; and what additional assistance he is providing the Governor, in order to commence schemes of work to relieve the situation.

Mr. Lyttelton: The number of registered unemployed increased during the past year by some 500 to 2,654. There should be many new opportunities for work, as the development plans for the Colony are carried out. These include extensive drainage and irrigation schemes, initiated under the previous Government, the first of which has been approved at an estimated cost of some £1,600,000. Towards this Her Majesty's Government will grant £900,000 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

St. Lucia (Tuberculosis)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish the figures showing the incidence of tuberculosis on the Island of St. Lucia; whether he will give the figures for a convenient date for the past five years; and whether he will give comparable figures for other colonial territories.

Mr. Lyttelton: The cases of tuberculosis notified in St. Lucia for the years 1946 to 1950 were: 1946, 114 cases; 1947, 103; 1948, 138; 1949, 67; 1950, 86.

Comparable figures for other Colonial territories are published in the Annual Medical Reports produced by each Colonial Government.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures for St. Lucia are higher than for any other comparable territory, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Lyttelton: I shall certainly give the matter my personal attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Volta River Scheme

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the Volta River Scheme.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how soon it is expected that the Preparatory Commission for the Volta River Scheme will begin its work.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have as yet nothing to add to the information in Cmd. 8702, but a further announcement on the steps to establish the Preparatory Commission will be made as soon as possible.

Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give his personal attention to this matter to ensure that the necessary consultation and consideration does not in any way lead to any relaxation of effort on the immediate work on Tema Harbour, which is so vital to the Colony, whatever happens to the final decision with regard to the Volta River Scheme?

Mr. Lyttelton: I reply to that question with some diffidence, but I think I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As the Minister is no doubt aware, this encouraging work on the Volta project had been going on for some years under the previous Government. May we assume that he will take all possible steps to pilot it to a conclusion as soon as he can?

Mr. Lyttelton: Her Majesty's Government and the Gold Coast Government have both thought that a Preparatory Commission to carry the technical investigation further is desirable. I think


I can say without any doubt that both Governments are anxious to press on with that scheme.

Sierra Leone (Election Disturbance)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state the nature of disturbance or difficulties in respect of the Baoma chiefdom in Sierra Leone; how many have been arrested in connection with this matter; and for what offences.

Mr. Lyttelton: After the election of a Paramount Chief in Baoma in August, I am sorry to say that the supporters of the successful candidate carried out widespread assaults on the supporters of the defeated candidate, and caused considerable damage to property. Thirty-six persons have been arrested and charged with assault, looting and extortion.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I now understand, seeing that this took place some time ago, that there is now tranquillity in this area?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think there is anything happening at the moment.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further action has been taken in respect of the Kaeyomba elections in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Governor is at present studying the report of the two Assessor Chiefs who were appointed to verify the credentials of members of the Kaiyamba Tribal Authority. Proposals may shortly be made which should solve the present difficulties.

Mr. Sorensen: When will a report be made on that matter?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definite date. In a very short time.

Cement Production

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to increase cement production in the Colonial Territories of West Africa.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Nigerian Government are negotiating with an experienced industrial undertaking about a project for cement production in the Eastern Region which would involve the investment of public funds.
The Gold Coast Government are considering a recent report by consulting engineers on a similar project in the Gold Coast.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Unauthorised Foreign Parties

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at how many points British colonial territory is occupied by unauthorised parties of foreigners.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are six Argentine and three Chilean posts in the British Sector of the Antarctic.

Mr. Maclean: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to get rid of these trespassers?

Mr. Lyttelton: The policy of the present Government, as of the previous one, has been to try to get the dispute before the International Court of Justice, but so far this Government have met with no greater success than the last.

Mr. Harold Davies: Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted when 154 troops were removed from Bermuda and N.A.T.O. forces were allegedly sent there? This is one of the colonial areas about which this House was never informed when the garrison was removed.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is a different question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not a fact that the Argentine Government have refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court in this matter?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is so. So far, both the Argentine and Chilean Governments have, I think, refused to submit their cases to the Court.

Witch Doctors

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many witch doctors are employed by his Department; and what fees are paid to them for their services.

Mr. Lyttelton: None, Sir.

Mr. Harold Davies: Can the Minister say how it is possible under present ordinances for witch doctors to get together more than three natives in Kenya, even if the witch doctors are on the side of the Government? Are these witch doctors members of the Witch Hunters' Union?

Deportations

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider instituting some method by which persons deported from a Colonial Territory without any hearing of their case may appeal against such a decision.

Mr. Lyttelton: Colonial Governments must retain the normal right of all administrations to deport aliens without prior judicial inquiry or subsequent appeal. As stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson) on 22nd October, most Colonial Governors have agreed that judicial process should normally be obligatory before a British subject or protected person is deported. Correspondence is proceeding with other Governors. But there must occasionally be cases in which the public interest would not permit the delay involved by an inquiry or appeal.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that in cases such as that of Mr. Peter Wright in Kenya, which prompted this Question, it is a proper state of affairs that a British subject, who has committed no legal offence, should be deported without being given any hearing and without being told at any time directly what the charges are against him; that these charges should have to be elicited piecemeal by means of Questions in this House, and that his only method of replying should be by correspondence published in the public Press. Would he not agree that this is a preposterous way of proceeding?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Lady is misinformed on many of these matters. This gentleman was a civil servant and precluded from political activities. She will also appreciate that I tried so far as possible not to make information known that would damage the future of the officer concerned, and therefore when I am pressed I am obliged to do so. I think she will understand that there is some difficulty in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Population Statistics

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long it will take the population of Kenya to double itself, basing the estimate on existing vital statistics and trends.

Mr. Lyttelton: Between 35 and 45 years, but even that wide estimate is given with reserve since existing vital statistics are necessarily sketchy and may prove to have been defective.

Mr. Reid: In view of the fact that this population question is one which is fundamental in Kenya, and that about three-fifths of the Colony is semi-desert, will the Minister address this point to the Commission he is sending out?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. The problem of the rapid growth of population is due partly to the absence of tribal warfare under British rule and partly to the skill of the medical profession, and it presents Kenya with one of her most obdurate long-term problems.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the population in Kenya be doubled before the Commission is appointed?

Development Plans (Expenditure)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the cost of Kenya's post-war 10-year £41 million development plans has been expended up to date.

Mr. Lyttelton: About £24 million will have been spent by the end of 1952. £17 million had been spent up to the end of 1951.

Political Meetings and Interviews

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities are now being afforded to African members of the Kenya Legislative Council to make contact with their people, through meetings and interviews, for legitimate political purposes.

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Mathu, the leader of the African unofficial members, broadcast to the Kikuyu people on 1st December. The fullest possible publicity has been given to his statement, and it has


been circulated widely in a variety of languages to Africans throughout Kenya. Also all African members of the Legislative Council have been informed that there is no barrier to their having interviews with their people, but in the present situation large public gatherings cannot be permitted.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister not aware that the Governor has announced that facilities for allowing African leaders to have proper political contacts with their people is being given the first priority? Can he say if what he has told us is all that is being done, and will he make sure that the Governor's statement does not mean that there will be attempts to form a Government-sponsored African political party?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot add anything to what I have said. Every facility will be given for spokesmen and leaders to consult their people, but in the present state of law and order large public gatherings cannot be permitted.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by large public meetings? Will he not now reconsider the decision in view of Mr. Mathu's broadcast and make arrangements for other members of the Legislative Council to be able to address gatherings of their people and thus provide the Africans with responsible leadership?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I cannot give that assurance. At the present moment it would be taking too large a risk with public safety to permit large gatherings. The House considered this matter very fully last week on the most unfortunate incident which occurred out of a gathering of 2,000 people. I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance at present.

Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Mathu's broadcast might have been much more effective had he been urged to make it some four or five weeks earlier?

Mr. Lyttelton: I saw him when I was there. Whether or not the timing was the best possible is a matter of opinion, but I can say—and I think the hon. Lady will be glad to hear this—that I consider his action to be courageous in the extreme.

Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the people in this country are entirely behind him in his attitude?

Arrested Persons (Trial)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of those persons in Kenya who have been arrested, screened and not released to date, how many are being, and will be, charged with and tried for crimes; with what crimes they will be charged, respectively; and what provision is being made for their defence by trained lawyers in sufficient time to enable their defences to be fully and fairly presented.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons in Kenya have been arrested for screening purposes since the emergency laws came into force; and how many have been subsequently detained or charged.

Mr. Lyttelton: About 13,000 persons were detained after initial screening. Two thousand were released because there was insufficient evidence against them. Criminal charges have been brought or are pending against the remainder, of whom over 5,000 have been tried and convicted or acquitted.
Every facility is afforded to persons in police custody to consult advocates and contact witnesses.
In addition to those detained after initial screening 183 persons are detained under emergency regulations, of whom 41 were handed over by the Tanganyika Government. Of these six have so far been charged with criminal offences and are now on trial.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the charges made and of the conditions under which these persons are detained.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the last part of my Question about facilities for defence? Does he agree—as I feel sure he does—that, especially in an emergency like the present emergency in Kenya, it is essential to inspire Africans with respect for law and order, and for that purpose not only should justice be actually and scrupulously done but it should appear to be done? Will he see


that adequate facilities are offered to the accused persons for defence by trained lawyers?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already answered that question. Adequate facilities for accused persons are available.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Perhaps I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought he did not give the number of persons who had been rounded up for screening purposes. Could he give that figure?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not those figures. I have asked for them, but I do not think they can be obtained. The 13,000 persons to whom I referred were detained after initial screening, but I have not the figures for the initial screening.

Sir W. Smithers: Would my right hon. Friend consider sending out the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) to defend those people and thus serve a dual purpose of defending these natives and ridding the House of one witch doctor for a few weeks?

Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) called one of my hon. Friends a witch doctor?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that myself, and I should have been doubtful what interpretation to place upon it if I had.

Mr. Griffiths: Would it not be out of order if it applied to the hon. and learned Gentleman as being a witch without being a doctor?

Mr. Hughes: I might object to the imputation coming from any other source, but I have nothing but the utmost contempt for the source from which it did come.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to give the House any information about the reports from Nairobi now on the tape machine that seven Africans have been killed and eight wounded in a recent raid by the police in Kenya?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not in position to make any statement.

Mr. Rankin: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that 5,000 Africans had been tried. Could he say whether these were all individual trials, or were there any mass trials?

Mr. Lyttelton: They have been tried and either acquitted or convicted under the usual processes of law.

Following is the information:


Charges made or pending are as follows:


(a) Murder or attempted murder
102


(b) Administering or consenting to unlawful oaths
485


(c) Managing or being members of unlawful society
176


(d) Offences against the person
245


(e) Offences against property
1,251


(f) Other penal offences, including escaping
818


(g) Local and special law offences
7,896

These persons are in custody in various prisons and police stations throughout the Colony
Every person detained in police custody is provided with adequate sleeping accommodation and is not called upon to do any work other than clean the cell and bedding. Each is exercised daily and none is manacled while detained. A morning and evening meal are provided and blankets are issued at night.
Persons in prison are in custody under the usual conditions, as laid down in the Police Ordinance.
Persons detained under emergency regulations are held in conditions similar to those of judgment debtors, except that rations are issued free.

Penal Code Ordinance

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what period the Kenya Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952, is in force, which enables a court to prohibit a person convicted of receiving, conveying or possessing stolen property from pursuing a trade or business, for a named period or permanently, if the offence was committed in the course of such trade or business.

Mr. Lyttelton: There is no time limit to the operation of this Ordinance.

Mrs. White: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that to make this kind of Ordinance a permanent change in the penal code is not really in keeping with the undertaking he gave to the House that controversial legislation should be of only one year's duration and would then lapse? Would he, therefore,


assure us that this particular Ordinance will be revoked when the other emergency ordinances come to an end?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir, I cannot give that assurance, because this is not a controversial piece of legislation.

Mrs. White: It is.

Mr. Lyttelton: No objections to the Ordinance were made when it was considered by the Legislative Council, and the African representative member spoke in support. Moreover, it happens to be modelled upon a section of the United Kingdom Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941, which imposes similar penalties for offences committed under the Act.

Mau Mau Activities (Firearms)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many cases, and at what places, have rifles been used by Mau Mau.

Mr. Lyttelton: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT some examples of the use of firearms in Mau Mau crimes. The list will not, however, be comprehensive, and I am reluctant to trouble the Government of Kenya for further details in present circumstances.

Mr. Rankin: But is it not the case that the use of rifles by Africans has been sporadic, not organised, and, in view of that, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would help events immensely if, instead of using rifles on our side, we were to employ tear gas?

Mr. Lyttelton: Tear gas, of course, has its uses in dispersing crowds sometimes, but in the open its uses are very limited. Certainly, that suggestion must be borne in mind. With regard to the use of rifles and firearms, I do not think it is of much point whether the use of those arms has been organised or not. I do not think it has. It has been sporadic.

Mr. Wigg: Have there been any cases in which tear gas has been used?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, I do not think so, because at the present moment large assemblies are against the law, and, except in one or two cases, there has been no occasion.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the use of rifles is not organised, would he consider the effectiveness of tear gas as a substitute for rifles on our side?

Mr. Lyttelton: I really think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He will see that when he looks at some of the instances that I am going to give, one of which was the murder of the Senior Chief Warahiu. His car was stopped—this must have been organised—and a gunman ran beside him and shot him dead. How could the hon. Gentleman consider the use of tear gas to prevent that?

Following is the list:
1. The following are examples of the use of rifles (or firearms) by the Mau Mau:—

(a) the murder of Senior Chief Waruhiu (7th October).
(b) Mr. and Mrs. Bindloss were attacked by an African armed with a pistol who broke into their home (5th October).
(c) Chief Paulo was ambushed by four Kikuyu armed with Verey pistols; one fired but missed (15th October).
(d) Some of the Kikuyu who have been murdered have been shot.

The theft of firearms is a common occurrence, and in numerous cases of burglary, house, shop and store breaking, all associated with violence, the criminals have been armed with firearms. However, many of the Mau Mau murders and attacks have been with "pangas" (knives).

Confiscated Livestock

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision is made for the proper care and feeding of livestock confiscated in Kenya.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many head of cattle, sheep and goats belonging to people of the Kikuyu tribe have been seized by the Kenya Government; and how many still remain alive.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are two phases in the collection of livestock under Emergency Regulations; first seizure, and then possible confiscation of the whole, or part. Two orders only for confiscation have so far been made.
In each area concerned special herdsmen were engaged to look after the stock held. In the first area the animals have ample grazing, similar in quality to that on the farms whence they were brought. In the second area they are grazed during


the day over 300 acres of pasture and each night held in paddocks in which their feeding is supplemented by cut fodder. Some of the animals seized were in poor
condition and a small proportion had to be killed. The final order in this case was for confiscation of only half the stock seized, the remainder being returned.
About 4.7 per cent. of the cattle and about 16 per cent. of the sheep and goats were killed because of their poor condition or died. Death of adult cattle was due to the very poor condition when impounded, and some unweaned calves inevitably died through separation from the cows. Death of sheep and goats was due to sudden torrential rain after very dry weather. Similar losses from the same causes are often suffered by African stock owners.

Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports from reputable correspondents indicating that there was considerable neglect, at any rate, in the early stages, of these operations? Can he say whether compensation will be paid in respect of the livestock that have died from neglect, since this is the only property, the only livelihood of those very poor people?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think the hon. Gentleman could gather from what I have said that there has been any neglect.

Mr. Driberg: I said from correspondents.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have given the details of what was done. I should be glad to look into any individual case, but I am at the moment in communication with the Kenya Government on these matters.

Mr. Wigg: I asked the right hon. Gentleman this same question on 25th November, when he was kind enough to say that he had no information but that if I put the Question down he would give me an answer. I have put the Question down but he has not given me an answer. I asked how many head of cattle, and how many sheep and goats have been confiscated. Will he give the House those figures, and tell us how many have died?

Mr. Lyttelton: The total number of livestock impounded was about 3,500 cattle and about 6,000 sheep and goats.

The percentages will give the hon. Gentleman the number that have been either killed or have died.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that these cattle and sheep would be the only wealth available to many of these Africans, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving full compensation to Africans for any that have died in the process?

Mr. Lyttelton: There is in contemplation a form of fund, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. As I said, I am in communication with the Kenya Government on these subjects.

Royal Commission (Interim Report)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to recommend that the proposed Royal Commission to inquire into grievances in Kenya should issue an interim report within six months.

Mr. Lyttelton: I will mention this suggestion to the Chairman of the Royal Commission. I am sure that if, after consultation with the Governor of Kenya, the Commission were of the opinion that an interim report on any particular matter within their terms of reference was desirable, they would not hesitate to make one. They may, however, feel, as I am somewhat disposed to do, that they could best help by completing, before they submit any report, their study of the wider range of problems affecting East Africa as a whole.

Mr. Rankin: Could the Secretary of State say whether the personnel of the Committee has yet been completed, and when it is proposed that it shall convene and leave for Kenya; does he not realise that the situation in Kenya may not await the issue of a Royal Commission Report, and does that not emphasise the need for an interim report?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think there is something in that, and I am doing all I can to complete the personnel of the Royal Commission. In fact, I have given instructions that all communications to persons invited are to be made by telegram and not by dispatch. These people are widely dispersed all over the world, and I am afraid it will still take a little time before I can announce the completion.

Detained Suspects (Conditions)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on the conditions in which suspects including women and children, are being detained in concentration camps in Kenya; and for what reason a gallows has been set up in one of these camps.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what purpose the gallows in a prison camp at Thomson's Falls have been erected; and whether he will state the circumstances in which executions of local murderers take place.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are no concentration camps in Kenya and the only gallows erected in the prisons are in Nairobi and at Thomson's Falls.
The conditions under which suspects are detained are as follows. There are two detention camps where 176 persons are detained under conditions similar to those of judgment debtors, except that rations are supplied free. Persons detained in police custody are provided with adequate sleeping accommodation. They are exercised daily and are not manacled while so detained. A morning and evening meal is provided and blankets are issued at night.
In addition, those Kikuyu males who have been evicted from Leshau Ward are being held in Thomson's Falls township, pending other arrangements. By day they are in the open, but at night or during rain shelter is available. They are fed by Government on the same scale of rations as is issued to remanded prisoners. Their women and children are housed in a number of temporary buildings where they feed themselves with food which they brought with them. Water
and wood fuel is supplied by Government. All are within 400 yards of the hospital, and are visited daily by an African hospital assistant.

Mr. Driberg: Is it correct, as indicated in photographs, that this gallows has been set up newly in some kind of compound, or enclosure, or camp in which a large number of suspects are herded together, possibly many of them innocent people; and why has this been done? He has not answered either Question: what is the reason?

Mr. Lyttelton: The only gallows that are erected are erected in prisons. Of

course, no public execution takes place in camps. Executions only take place in front of official representatives.

Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have answered the question. There are no gallows erected in concentration camps, but only in prisons. I cannot go further.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that the preliminaries of execution at Thomson's Falls do take place in full view of the internees, who squat round during that period; is this not barbarous, and will the right hon. Gentleman remove unconvicted internees, or alternatively remove the gallows?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "internees." If he means people who are in prison, it may be that they see the gallows. That may be so.

Mr. Fernyhough: Why should they?

Mr. Lyttelton: That happens almost everywhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Or the building. Up to date every person convicted to undergo capital punishment has been transferred to Nairobi, but now gallows have been erected in Thomson's Falls Prison.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the deep concern felt in the country at reports in the Press daily and answers to Questions, will the right hon. Gentleman not now reconsider the suggestion I have made more than once in discussing this matter, that there should go to Kenya a delegation of all parties of the House; and does he not realise that that would reassure people in this country and, I believe, help people in Kenya?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will certainly reconsider any suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say in all candour that at the present moment I do not think such a delegation would be in the interests of Kenya. I am somewhat surprised that those most anxious for self-government appear at times to be most anxious that we should intervene in these affairs.

Mr. Nicholson: Have some of the newspaper dispatches lacked some degree of accuracy?

Mr. Griffiths: The suggestion I made does not deal with self-government at all. That was a matter which was discussed when I was in Kenya 18 months ago. The suggestion is to send a delegation from this House of Commons—because we are finally responsible—to go to Kenya, to investigate conditions, and to come back and report, not to intervene in the affairs of the Government there.

Mr. Lyttelton: I must say quite frankly that I do not think that would at this moment serve a useful purpose. The Government of Kenya are dealing with a very difficult emergency and a series of atrocious crimes, and I should be hesitant to suggest measures such as the right hon. Gentleman now puts forward. I will, however, certainly keep this matter closely in view, and when I think such a suggestion would promote the public interest I will be very glad to accept it.

Mr. Wigg: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the most effective reassurance he could give this country and Kenya would be if he resigned?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): An impudent remark.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman, when he has been a little longer in this House, will know that these bilious comments do him no good.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Campaign of Violence (Support)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to estimate the numbers and percentages of the population who are supporting the present campaign of violence in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: I regret that it is not possible to give any reliable estimate.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is essential, in the interests of peace, to distinguish between the friends and foes of peace and civilisation; does he agree that he is not doing that, and will he take steps to see that these people are treated differently?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot be responsible for making estimates of the percentage of the population who are supporting the campaign of violence, which is the Question the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me. There are certainly large numbers who are.

Collective Punishment

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far his policy of collective punishment in Kenya has extended up to the present; what towns, villages and areas have suffered from it; how many people have been killed and injured by it; and how much further he intends to extend it.

Mr. Lyttelton: Collective punishment in Kenya imposed since the declaration of a State of Emergency has so far been applied only to two areas, in which no town or village in the English sense has been affected. The first was in one small part of Nyeri district and the second in another small part of Laikepia district. In neither operation is
anyone known to have been killed or injured. Whether this policy will be applied to these small specific areas will depend upon the conduct of the Kikuyu.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not agree that this policy of collective punishment is not only unrighteous but ineffective and is alienating the friends of peace, and will he see that the innocent are not punished equally with the guilty or at all?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to answer his own Question. I should not agree with those answers at all. He has been fortunate enough not to be in a community where the ordinary processes of law and order have broken down. In these circumstances, there is no alternative except to impose collective punishment, provided these punishments are confined to small areas where atrocious crimes have been committed.

Governor's Appointment (Interregnum)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why there was a three months delay in appointing the new Governor of Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: When the timetable for the departure of Sir Philip Mitchell and


the arrival of Sir Evelyn Baring in Kenya was arranged early this year, there was no reason to expect Mau Mau outbreaks on the scale on which they later took place and plans were therefore made in the usual way which allowed for a limited interregnum.
Sir Philip Mitchell left Kenya on the 21st June. In the middle of August the Officer Administering the Government reported that the situation was deteriorating and that he would shortly be introducing measures to deal with it. Sir Evelyn Baring's arrival in Kenya could not usefully have been advanced and I had full confidence in the very capable Officer Administering the Government.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that many people believe that he was ill-informed about the state of affairs in Kenya at that time, and that many, both inside and outside the House, believe that much of the mischief now occurring in Kenya was due to the panicking measures of the acting Governor in this interregnum?

Mr. Lyttelton: There is absolutely no justification whatever for the statement which the hon. Gentleman has made. The panicking measures to which he refers have now long ago been superseded by much more drastic measures which have proved to be necessary.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask why it was that there was such a delay between the retirement of Sir Philip Mitchell and his replacement by Sir Evelyn Baring?

Mr. Lyttelton: There is nearly always an interregnum between the departure of the retiring Governor and the arrival of the new one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That can be gone into another time. There are many reasons for it. The chief reason is that the Colony has to pay twice. Since this particular incident happened, I have taken measures to reduce the period of this interregnum.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Northern Rhodesia (Education)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when compulsory education between the ages of 12 and 16 in the Northern Rhodesia Copper Belt was abolished; and how many children are now without educational facilities.

Mr. Lyttelton: Owing to overcrowding and shortage of staff compulsory education for Africans in this area unfortunately had to be suspended in July, 1951. In consequence, about 1,700 children were refused enrolment. All were over age or had no permission from their native authorities to come into an urban area.

Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister think that this is a very mean action for a wealthy Colony to take? Is he not aware that the copper mines are booming in Northern Rhodesia and that only last year they exported something like £30 million worth of base metals? Does he not think we might spend a little more money and make a little more effort to get education for these youngsters?

Mr. Lyttelton: I feel some diffidence in answering that question, because these matters took place in July, 1951. I think the reasons which impelled my predecessor to take that decision were not only the question of spending money, but also the fact that there was gross overcrowding taking place and that measures to increase the building of schools would necessarily take time.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not true that Central Africa, although it is the richest part of the African Colonies, is behind the other Colonies in Africa in making provision for higher education?

Mr. Lyttelton: That may be so, but at any rate efforts are being made to catch up. As I understand it, the present measures had to be approved, with regret, by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wealthy mine owners in the Copper Belt of Northern Rhodesia are spending great sums of money in building operations—building hospitals and schools out of their own funds? Is he aware that they are setting an example to the rest of the country?

Federation (Financial Burden)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give an estimate of the extent to which the proposed Central African federation would involve increased financial burdens and increased taxation in either of the three territories affected.

Mr. Lyttelton: In the Report of the Fiscal Commission, (Command 8672) para. (14) the annual net additional expenditure required is estimated at £350,000, which would involve no increased taxation in any of the three territories. A further sum would have to be added for defence, but preliminary estimates indicate that it will not materially affect the conclusions in the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Collective Punishment

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what instructions he has given to the High Commissioner of Malaya regarding collective reprisals against Malay villages suspected of harbouring bandits.

Mr. Lyttelton: No instructions have been given, and none are necessary. As I have previously said, I have every confidence in General Templer's reasonable exercise of the discretion entrusted to him.

Mr. Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a form of punishment in which any military advantages are far outweighed by the damage to our cause throughout the whole civilised world? Does he think it is fair to leave it to General Templer to assess the political consequences of those acts?

Mr. Lyttelton: This has nothing whatever to do with military matters. This is entirely in order either to bring witnesses forward or, where those atrocious crimes are committed by a small community, to visit those who are guilty of not coming forward and supporting the law with some punishment.

Mr. Edelman: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the system of collective punishment is consistent with the Charter of Human Righs of the United Nations, and, if he has considered that matter, would he say what conclusions he has reached?

Mr. Lyttelton: The imposition of collective punishment, provided it is confined to a very small area, is in my opinion not a contravention of that Charter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the whole history of guerilla warfare, of which there has been a great deal since 1945, shows that the right plan is either to afford protection to the population or else to move them somewhere else where they can be protected?

Mr. Lyttelton: I could not possibly accept so large a generalisation.

Casualties (British Subjects)

Colonel J. H. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of British subjects killed and wounded by bandits in Malaya for the last three months for which figures are available and for the corresponding three months last year.

Mr. Lyttelton: I understand that the figures wanted by my hon. and gallant Friend are those relating to European civilians. In the three months ending 31st October, 1952, six European civilians were killed or wounded, against 24 during the corresponding period in 1951.

Colonel Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large body of opinion is extremely grateful to him for the courageous lead he has given in this matter to bring about these favourable figures? I only wish he had been in office earlier.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these terrible crimes are covered by the extraordinary phrase he used in a previous supplementary answer that he gave to a previous Question about "crimes committed by the communities"? Does he wish to amend that phrase, or does he really mean that?

Mr. Lyttelton: If I used that phrase it was quite inadvertent. I meant crimes committed in the communities.

Mr. Driberg: The phrase was "by the communities."

Mr. Lyttelton: Well, that was a slip of the tongue. I can remember one of these occasions, when a Chinese was shot in a café in front of 200 people, and no witness would come forward to enable the authorities to bring the murderer to trial.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman a copy available of the new directive to the Malayan Communist Party referred to in the Press, and would he consider putting a copy in the Library?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have seen a report of that kind. I will try to meet the right hon. Gentleman's request, but I cannot say how authentic the document is.

Mr. Griffiths: If I put a Question down, would the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the renewed concentration upon civilian rather than upon military efforts, pushing on quickly with economic and political advances?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Government's political measures have been pushed on with the utmost speed during the last year. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly, that there is nothing we can do to accelerate them. We have pushed on with them at a much greater rate than ever before in Malaya.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (BANNED MEETING)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Commissioner at Nicosia banned a bus excursion to Nicosia arranged for 26th October by the National Liberation Coalition, despite assurances that there would be neither formal meetings nor speeches; why local bus companies were warned by the police, under threat of severe penalty, against carrying any passengers on the proposed excursion; and why the police, after the excursion had been officially cancelled, erected barbed wire obstructions on 26th October on all roads leading to Nicosia, stopped all traffic and subjected passengers to great inconvenience.

Mr. Lyttelton: This excursion was organised by Communists to attend an assembly which had been prohibited because its purpose was seditious and it constituted a threat to public order. Bus drivers taking part rendered themselves liable to prosecution, and steps were taken to warn them in their own interests. Police check points were established to warn obvious excursionists. There was no inconvenience to other traffic or interference with it.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these decisions were taken after the excursion had been cancelled? Does he think that this sort of behaviour on the part of the authorities is likely to gain the co-operation of the Cypriots?

Mr. Lyttelton: Of course, it was taken after the first expedition was prohibited, but the same expedition under a slightly different name was being organised when these measures were taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH GEORGIA (SEAL KILLING)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will now take steps to ensure that licences are not issued to sealers in South Georgia unless an undertaking is given that humane methods are used when killing the elephant seal;
(2) whether he will take steps to cancel the licences of sealers in South Georgia who are found to be using inhumane methods when killing the elephant seal.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am making inquiries into this subject and am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is evidence of the most inhumane methods adopted in killing these animals which bring out the most bestial aspects in the killers, and that this is a grave reflection on his Department which, I sincerely trust, he will remove at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am making inquiries, and hope to be able to answer my hon. Friend before long.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (COTTON GINNERIES)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cotton ginneries in Uganda are now owned by the African Co-operative Union; and to what extent these ginneries are obliged to buy cotton from other growers than the co-operative marketing societies.

Mr. Lyttelton: Four ginneries acquired on their behalf by the Government have been taken over by three registered unions. One of these unions also leases


a fifth ginnery from the Buganda Government. None of these ginneries will be required to buy cotton from growers other than members of co-operative marketing societies.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MATERIALS

Mr. Remnant: asked the Prime Minister to state the present duties of the Ministry of Materials; and if he will consider transferring these duties to other Ministries.

The Prime Minister: The duties of the Ministry of Materials continue to be those set out by the late Government in Command Paper 8278. They are, in general, to ensure adequate supplies of the materials there specified.
I am not proposing to make any changes affecting the Ministry of Materials at the present time. The allocation of duties between different Departments is under frequent review, and transfers will be made whenever they promise a net advantage in efficiency and economy.

Mr. Remnant: In these future reviews promised by my right hon. Friend, will he keep in mind the advantage to industry of having this one less Ministry to deal with?

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House attach very great importance indeed to Ministerial responsibility for this, and has the Minister made arrangements for any survey of the mineral resources of Great Britain, and will he provide a White Paper stating what steps he has taken to explore them?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that arises out of the original Question and answer. At any rate, I should before responding to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman from the Front Opposition Bench, like to fortify myself by the strongest possible official advice.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for establishing this Ministry was the prospective shortage of raw materials and the necessity of trying to rely more upon indigenous raw materials, having regard to the expenditure on importing raw

materials, and as the right hon. Gentleman has really decided to have this Ministry, why did he not fortify himself with information as to why he set it up?

The Prime Minister: I did not set it up. It was set up at the moment when the right hon. Gentleman and others, who were then colleagues, embarked on a very extensive scheme of re-armament in order to enable orders to be spread in the best possible way. It was found to be right and convenient at the time. I agree that as we get more ahead on re-armament work we may be able to make further reductions, but I think that it would be a mistake to make a change now in a large sphere of re-distribution of duties which may not necessarily be accompanied by definite economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDITERRANEAN SUPREME COMMAND

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as to the appointment of a supreme commander in the Mediterranean.

The Prime Minister: I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on 14th May. Discussions are proceeding over a wide sphere with much amity.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the Prime Minister really mean to say that no progress has been made since he said last May that staff talks were urgently proceeding on this matter and a solution was expected very shortly, and does this mean that he has abandoned the fairly strong views which he once had about the sharing of commands between ourselves and our American allies?

The Prime Minister: None of these assumptions is even remotely founded on fact.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest to the House that after six months—[An HON. MEMBER: "Seven."]—or seven months—what is a matter of a month to the right hon. Gentleman?—after a long period of time he is unable to come to a conclusion upon a matter upon which he expressed quite definite opinions when he was on this side of the House? Why can he not make up his mind?

The Prime Minister: I long ago made up my mind; the question is to get other people to agree. I hope to make a statement on this matter when we meet after Christmas and after the conferences now taking place in Paris, and I would, if I might be permitted by the indulgence of the House, warn the right hon. Gentleman not to be too prophetic about the way in which things are going. They may not all be as unfortunate for this country as he would no doubt wish.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Shinwell: Ignoring that quite unworthy remark, may I ask the Prime Minister why it is that when everybody, including himself, thought that he had remarkable influence with all the other countries concerned in this matter, he has been unable to use his influence in this long period of time?

The Prime Minister: Whether I have been able to use any influence I may possess in the direction suggested cannot be judged by Parliament until the statement is made after the conferences which are taking place in Paris. I certainly would not say this if I have not very great hopes of being able to give—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it in order even for the Prime Minister to accuse an hon. Member of this House not merely of unpatriotic action but of unpatriotic motives?

Mr. Speaker: An allegation by one hon. Member against another of un-avowed motives is always out of order.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Mitchison: In those circumstances, Sir, are you prepared to direct the Prime Minister to withdraw his remark?

Mr. Speaker: What I heard said did not, in my judgment, amount to that.

The Prime Minister: As to the question of the imputation of motives, very large latitude has always been given and used in the House. As for the question whether Members in one part of the House think that others are unpatriotic, there again is a subject on which large

latitude has been allowed. I respectfully submit that I have not in any way trespassed beyond the latitude which I have seen so freely used during my 50 years' service in this House.

Mr. Attlee: Unless the right hon. Gentleman has failed to study the proceedings of past years, he would know very well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) worked extremely hard in building up the defences of Western Europe, and that the view which the right hon. Gentleman holds of him is not that which has been held by his colleagues from other countries. The remark is entirely unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: I think I am in the recollection of the whole House when I say that I have heard the Prime Minister in the past express appreciation of the same right hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister: It is quite true I have in the past expressed appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's work. I am sorry to say it has been inroaded upon in recent months.

Mr. Attlee: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what is unpatriotic in seeking to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman has implemented the views which he put so strongly before the House on the need for the proper organisation of defence in the Mediterranean, and why we should not have an explanation of the six months' delay, about which the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer whatever?

The Prime Minister: With great respect to you, Sir, I do not admit that the imputation of want of patriotism is necessarily un-Parliamentary because it may be urged that cosmopolitanism and internationalism cover even a wider sphere. It governs what I said in the matter, and I was warning the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that the result of these discussions may be more satisfactory than he now supposes, and he would find himself at a disadvantage in foresight at any rate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that this is the first Allotted Day for the Committee stage of the Transport Bill.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Considered in Committee. [1st Allotted Day.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(DISPOSAL OF COMMISSION'S EXISTING ROAD HAULAGE UNDERTAKING.)

3.38 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "dispose," to "of," in line 9, and to insert:
by the exercise of their powers under this Act.
We are now embarking upon a quick gallop through a miserable Bill for which inadequate time has been given. Most of us will be much relieved if the Patronage Secretary will withdraw along with the Prime Minister.

Hon. Members: Boo.

The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will behave more quietly.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): On a point of order. Is it in order to boo a Member of this House?

Mr. William Ross: What else can you say to a goose?

The Chairman: The hon. Member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Ross: I merely asked a simple question. I do not see that there is anything that I require to withdraw.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will not withdraw that remark, he will withdraw from the Committee.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Herbert Morrison: It is really too bad of the Prime Minister when there is a Guillotine operating to come back and waste the time of the House. Secondly, is what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said so much out of order? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]
If so, on what grounds? Is the Prime Minister to be permitted to charge my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) with the reverse of patriotism and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock to be thrown out because of the use of the word "goose"?

The Prime Minister: On a point of order—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: The Prime Minister has risen to a point of order.

The Prime Minister: With very great respect, is it not a fact that booing is an un-Parliamentary action.

The Chairman: Yes—

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Chairman: I was asked a question and I hope the Committee will allow me to answer the point of order put to me.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: I have given my Ruling, and if there is anything further to say on it, I shall be glad to hear it, but in the meantime I want to say that booing is grossly out of order and I hope it will not be repeated.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: What about patriotism?

The Chairman: I now ask for the withdrawal of the word "goose."

Mr. H. Morrison: Mr. H. Morrison rose—

The Chairman: I can deal with only one thing at a time.

Mr. Morrison: With great respect—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Chairman: I will deal with only one point of order at a time, and I have asked the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to withdraw the word "goose."

Mr. Morrison: It is on that point that I want to rise. I respectfully submit to you that there are two points to which you have taken exception. One is booing, which I can quite understand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I understand the Chairman's Ruling, and I do not dispute it. But I also understand the indignation of my hon. Friend as well. So far as I know, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was not booing. He is charged with another offence, that he used the word "goose." It is on that particular point that I rise to a point of order.
I want to know if it is permissible to charge my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) with the reverse of patriotism, as was done by the Prime Minister, which is a very serious charge; and at the same time, has my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock got to contemplate suspension from the House, which I gather is where we are getting to, merely for using the word "goose," about which I am sure the Prime Minister, who can give hard words himself, will not be unduly upset?

3.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: May I say, with great respect and with the indulgence of the Committee, that I do not in the least mind being called a goose? I have been called many worse things than that. I only ventured to rise because this custom of booing—this is the third time that I have been booed by the Socialist Party—I have always been brought up to believe was contrary to the spirit and the conduct of the House. As for the rest, if I may be permitted to say so, I gladly accept the hon. Member stigmatising me in that way, and if that will weigh with you, Sir Charles, no one will be more grateful than myself.

Mr. Ross: It is rather a pity that the Prime Minister was not in the House the whole of last night when Scotland was so badly treated. My remark was directed to the Patronage Secretary.

The Chairman: In view of what the Prime Minister says, that he does not mind being called a goose I think we can say the incident is finished. It then does not matter to me. [Interruption.] We are now engaging in a Time-table on this Bill, and if I do not get the assistance of the Committee, we shall not be able to get through in the time allotted.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: On a point of order. First of all, no one called anyone a goose. In the second place, if a remark is out of order, it cannot be put in order by any hon. Member saying he does not mind being called that. Is the Prime Minister, with all his great experience, not really arrogating to himself the role of arbiter as to what is or what is not in order? Are we not reaching a curious condition if an individual can himself say, "I do not mind what I am called," and the Chairman says, "That is all right, then; we can go on"?

The Chairman: The word "goose" is not in the list of unparliamentary expressions. The word is not in the list of forbidden phrases in Erskine May, and I think we have now got the matter settled.

Mr. Callaghan: I think we all agree that it is not a very good start to a very bad day. The Bill that we are going to discuss will not arouse any more unity, and certainly will not bring any more pleasure to the benches opposite, than the exhibition we have just witnessed. What we are about to discuss is the Amendment which I have moved.
The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the British Transport Commission—[Interruption.]—from disposing of such property as they—[Interruption.]—

The Chairman: I hope hon. Members, as they are leaving the Chamber, will be as quiet as possible.

Mr. Callaghan: The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the British Transport Commission from being required to dispose of their property in the Road Haulage Executive as quickly as possible. The first question I should like to ask the Minister is: Why does he want them to dispose of their property as quickly as possible? What is the reason for the hurry?
There are two de-nationalisation Measures in front of us, one in connection with steel and the other in connection with transport. In the Amendment I am submitting to the Committee, we propose to substitute the words contained in the steel de-nationalisation Bill for those contained in the transport de-nationalisation Bill. We thought that if no words of ours were likely to appeal to the Minister, then perhaps the words of his colleague the Minister of Supply might appeal to him.
We ask him, as question number 1: What is the reason for dealing with this matter in this vast hurry and for requiring the Road Haulage Executive to be broken up so quickly? Why—if it will not be out of order for me to say this—has the Minister not chosen the form of words contained in the Steel Bill which we now propose to write into the Transport Bill? It is indeed a curious situation that one method of disposal should be adopted in the case of steel and another in the case of transport, which must make


the position of the traders and of the British Transport Commission worse than it need otherwise be.
The second point is this. If Clause 1 goes through as it is at present drafted, the public road haulage service that has been built up very painfully during the last three or four years will be brought to an end very quickly indeed. Why does the Minister wish to bring to an end quickly the first national road haulage service that this country has had, when it is badly needed by traders, and when there are many doubts and difficulties about so doing in the minds of those engaged in the trade and commerce of this country? Why is it the Minister's intention to break up this national road haulage undertaking, which is at the moment conveying many millions of tons of goods up and down the roads of this country?
I would refer the Minister to the document that he has received from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. One of their most potent criticisms is on page 1, where they say:
The vital interests of users could be seriously impaired if the existing network of services, both local and national, were disbanded or disrupted; continuity of adequate service to industry and commerce was imperative.
How does the Minister intend to preserve this continuity of adequate service during a break-up that may well take place over a matter of not more than six months, and with the atomisation of the road haulage service into small units?
Why, instead of doing it in this way, has the Minister not proposed that the British Transport Commission should be allowed to dispose of their property in a reasonably orderly way by virtue of the provisions that are contained in the Bill, so that they may be able to judge when they can sell the property, at times which will not disrupt trade and industry and will not involve the taxpayer or the traders—who will have to pay the levy—or anybody else who is concerned in this matter, including the Commission, in the maximum of loss?
Our Amendment is designed to secure an orderly disposal of those assets. Why does the Minister suggest a disorderly disposal of them? What is the hurry? What is the purpose of breaking up this thing so quickly, irrespective of the consequences to trade and industry and

irrespective of the amount of loss involved and of the breakdown of the services that will flow from it? I would quote from a recent issue of the "Southern Daily Echo," that for Saturday, 15th November, in which the Chairman of the southern area of the Road Haulage Association is reported as saying that 99 per cent. of his members were opposed to the present methods of de-nationalisation.
The present Government were under-estimating the difficulties of the job. The Government seemed far too concerned with 'knocking down' the Road Haulage Executive"—
I take it he means knocking it down at a cheap price—
with too little regard about what was going to take its place. We are greatly concerned,
said the Chairman of the southern area of that Association.
That is a very serious matter. Of course the road hauliers are concerned. They have the greatest doubts about the bona fides and the stability of the people who are to come into the road haulage industry once these sales at knock-down prices take place. Too late in the day they have seen the consequences of what the Minister is doing, and they are now no longer the supporters of the Minister in his proposition.
I ask the Minister further questions. We are not going to take long with our speeches. We shall make them all businesslike and short, if we can. I would interpolate a word to indicate that we shall try to avoid Divisions that we would otherwise take, because they would eat into the short time that is allocated to us. That is why we shall not divide on matters which we feel are of great importance to us indeed in what we are discussing.
What is the Minister's estimate of the number of vehicles that he is likely to sell under this quick method? There will be, roughly, 35,000 vehicles on the market straight away. Does he think he is going to be able to dispose of them quickly at a reasonable price? He should give the Committee an estimate of what he expects to be able to sell, under the Clause as it now stands. I draw his attention to the fact that putting 35,000 vehicles on the roads as quickly as possible will mean that he is trying to double the normal sale of commercial vehicles per year in this country.
If hon. Members will refer to the monthly Digest of Statistics, they will see


that the annual sale of commercial vehicles above 15 cwt. shown in that volume is about 40,000. The Minister is proposing to double that number by telling the Commission that they have to sell them as quickly as possible. If he adopts that wording, does he not realise that he will be inviting the Commission to get rid of the vehicles at a moment of trade recession, when vehicles are laid up? There are more laid-up vehicles in the possession of the Road Haulage Executive than have ever been laid up during the history of that organisation. That is a measure of the trade recession that has overtaken this country in the last 12 months. Why does the Minister choose this moment to tell the British Transport Commission that they have to dispose of their vehicles.
What he will do, as I suggested to him the other day in a supplementary question, is to invite people to hold off purchasing, and automatically and inevitably to depreciate the value of the vehicles by shovelling them on to the market all at one time, instead of putting them on slowly in lots so that they can be absorbed by the market. Does he really believe that there are sufficient small businessmen in this country to buy out an organisation whose capital value is estimated at up to £100 million? Does he realise what he is doing?
4.0 p.m.
To invite the Stock Exchange to place an issue of £100 million, or even half that figure, would be a mammoth undertaking, and I would not mind guaranteeing that they would have a lot of underwriting to do. But he is not even going to use the Stock Exchange. He is going to some mythical thousands of small businessmen who are supposed to be crying out to get back into the industry. He is going to say to them, "It is your job to raise up to £100 million to buy this undertaking." That is why no responsible person to whom I have talked has ever taken the view that the Minister is likely to sell more than 25 per cent. Of the vehicles. If that is what he is going to do, he should tell the Committee. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman this question before, and it is high time that he told us what he expects to do in this matter.
There are two ways of disposing of a piece of machinery that one does not want. One can take a sledge hammer to it, swing the hammer round one's head, pound the machinery to pieces, reduce it to scrap and sell it as junk. That is the method of the Minister under this Clause. Or one can dismantle the machinery, dismember it, unbolt it, unscrew it, take the component parts away from the machine, set them out, clean them and lay them out properly for sale as parts of the machine. That is the method we propose under this Amendment.
That is the difference between the Minister and ourselves. Neither my hon. Friends nor myself can follow why, if the Minister has the national interest at heart, he should not follow the method which is likely to secure the best bargain for the people of this country, who have paid for these assets, in the sale and disposal of them.
I sum up, therefore, by asking the Minister these four questions. What is his estimate of the number of vehicles that he will sell? What is the need for hurry at a time of trade depression, at a time when, if he offers all the vehicles for sale at the same time, he is bound to get lower prices? Why has he not adopted the method shown in the Iron and Steel Bill for disposal which we are now attempting to write into the Transport Bill? Finally, what step is he taking to safeguard the carriage of goods up and down the country roads of this country whilst this chaos will be going on?
The Minister has a duty to tell the Committee and the traders what his attitude is towards these problems. If he would adopt the proposals contained in our Amendment, we should at least have an orderly disposal of the vehicles which the Road Haulage Executive have to get rid of, and we should at least be able to get a decent price. I suggest to the Minister that it is his duty to forget his election pledges and to act in the interests of the nation.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I tried to deal at once with one or two of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am quite


ready, by leave of the Committee, to intervene again at a later stage if further points arise on this Amendment, but I take it that as there is a large number of Amendments, and as we have a Guillotine procedure in force, the course I have suggested would commend itself to the Committee. I am glad of what the hon. Gentleman said about the number of Divisions, and I agree that it would be a mistake to eat into the limited time available by having a large number of them. I am sure that no one will assume that, just because the Opposition have not voted against a proposal, thereby they are giving it their support.
In fairness to the Commission, as they have no spokesman other than myself, I should like at this stage to make their position quite plain. I have had entirely harmonious relations of a personal kind with the British Transport Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly. The fact that we do not agree necessarily on everything that should be done does not presuppose the absence of good personal relations.
As I say, the Commission has no spokesman other than the Minister. Although the Chairman of the Commission sits in another place, it is obviously unwise, and was accepted and laid down as guidance by the previous Government, that a chairman of a nationalised board who, by chance, happens to be a member of another place, should be able to make speeches there. I should therefore like to make it plain that, while the Commission welcomes certain aspects of the proposals in this Bill in regard to railway charges—I cannot, of course, develop them at this point—they are completely opposed to the provisions in regard to the disposal of the Road Haulage Executive. They think not only that it should not be disposed of, but that the methods that the Government are proposing are unworkable. It is only fair to the Commission to make their position absolutely plain.
I do not agree with the Commission and I have little doubt that before many months are over their fears will not be realised. The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions. He asked, first, why should we try as speedily as practicable to bring to an end the operations of the Road Haulage Executive. I think he knows the answer. Once a decision is taken that the long-distance monopoly

of the British Transport Commission and the Road Haulage Executive is to be broken up, the quicker it is done, provided it is in an orderly way, the better for everybody concerned. Nothing could be worse than a long-drawn-out process.
Now I know we are giving the Commission a very difficult ask. We are asking of the Road Haulage Executive that during the period of their diminishing authority they will continue to run efficiently the services that remain to them. But, after all, the same thing was asked of a large number of private hauliers by the right hon. Gentleman who was the Minister in 1946. And remember the position of those hauliers. Many of them were working on loans and guarantees. It was known to the
People who were backing them that their businesses were to be appropriated. It was not unreasonable to assume that banks and other credit facilities would no longer be available. Yet the late Government laid on these people a statutory duty to continue in their task even though it was known that their activities would be brought to an end.
And not only that. An express statutory obligation was laid in the Act of 1947 on the private haulier to continue even from the date when a notice of acquisition had been given until the actual transfer took place. If it was not unreasonable to ask that of a large number of small people, it is not unreasonable in our view to ask the Commission and the Road Haulage Executive to carry on even though their long-distance monopoly is to be brought to an end, and to carry on in an ever-diminishing field.
I think I have answered the argument of the hon. Gentleman in regard to the need for speed. Of course, we do not intend that there should be a disorderly rush. The Commission will be charged with seeing that there is no unreasonable interference, as far as is possible, with the due discharge of their duties, and the Disposal Board, will have to see that the units as broken up will conform to the needs of the Commission in this regard. Both these procedures will, we hope, retain a proper measure of order and discipline during the period of transition. We have no intention whatever of making speed the only criterion, but speed is an important criterion and that is why it figures in Clause 1 of this Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me why we did not adopt the same procedure as that in the Steel Bill. I am interested in a later Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends which lifts certain words wholly out of the Steel Bill and applies them to this Bill. But surely a little consideration shows that the two Bills are wholly different in machinery, even though they share an ultimate objective.
In the case of steel, the Government do not hold assets but hold the securities of companies. In transport, we hold assets, and assets can only be properly used
by someone having physical possession of them and being able to employ them properly. That is why we are providing that, as the field of State monopoly diminishes, there shall be proper opportunities open for private hauliers to take their place.
The third question that the hon. Gentleman directed to me asked why we were breaking up an organisation which, he claimed, was fulfilling a vital national purpose. This, of course, calls in question the whole policy of the Government. I could range, as I have done on three occasions in the House, over the reasons the road haulage disposal proposals are in the Bill, but that would entrench on a great many other Amendments and would unduly take up the time of the Committee. Let it suffice if I say this—

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Let me finish this point first. No one disputes the vigour and zeal with which the Road Haulage Executive have tackled their task. It is true that they are not being of great financial help to the Commission. At the moment, in all probability they are not earning their own keep, but that is not for lack of zeal. The purpose of setting up the Road Haulage Executive was not to have, even had it been successful, an efficient road transport system, but to have an integrated transport system with the rail activities of the nation.

Mr. Callaghan: I was not on that broad point, but on this much narrower point: the traders of the country have gradually come to appreciate for the first time that they have a trunk service that

runs up and down the main roads. What I am asking is why the right hon. Gentleman wants to break up that particular bit of the service. I am not speaking of the Road Haulage Executive as a whole, but of a very valuable, vital link in our transport system that has been built up over the last three years. They might be able to carry on with, for example, 5,000 vehicles. Why does the Minister insist on breaking up the whole thing?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are quite satisfied, even though there have been substantial improvements in the services offered by the Road Haulage Executive over what they gave three years ago, that none the less private competition in that field, too, will yield better results. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
The hon. Gentleman asked me about certain resolutions of and correspondence with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, but I hope he realises—the full letter was read out in the House—that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce are wholly behind the intention of the Bill. Their only dispute is with one aspect of the machinery of the Bill. When we get to Clause 3, no doubt Amendments may be put forward by those who are entitled to speak for the Association on matters of that kind.
We are fully determined that there shall be a proper service during the transitional period. Just as the private haulier gave proper service even though he was under notice of early extinction, so we are sure that the Road Haulage Executive will do the same and that the patriotism and good sense shown by large numbers of small people will also be shown by a large-scale State monopoly.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked for an estimate of how many vehicles we expect to sell. He has not himself exactly helped in the disposal by some of the alarms and excursions in which he and his hon. and right hon. Friends have indulged; but all the evidence that has come to me lately shows that the fears that the Opposition hope to arouse in the minds of large numbers of potential buyers are not likely to be realised. We have every expectation that there will be very substantial sales indeed. Some of the very gloomy estimates of hon. Members opposite will certainly not be realised. Of course, no one can say precisely what the numbers will be.
If I had taken active steps in advance of the decision of Parliament to invoke a nation-wide referendum, the House would have said that I was anticipating the decision of Parliament. I am sure, however, that as soon as the House has made up its mind on the Bill and the Bill becomes an Act, there will be no difficulty whatever in disposing of a very substantial number of these businesses. I am not in the least impressed by the argument of the hon. Gentleman that the annual sale of commercial vehicles is only half of the total road haulage fleet.

Mr. Callaghan: Or its equivalent.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I mean, equivalent to about that size. What we are offering for sale are not ordinary single vehicles. They are businesses with business connections and many other assets, in a wholly different category from any vehicles which are offered on the market for the first time. We shall have other Amendments and other opportunities of discussion, but I hope that I have done something to meet the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I will await any further observations that may be made.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Minister has not given any satisfactory answer to my hon. Friend's criticisms. Although the Guillotine procedure makes it extremely difficult to have satisfactory consideration and discussion of the whole Bill, the Committee would be making a great mistake to under-estimate the importance of these first Amendments on the Order Paper. "The Times," in a leading article today, very rightly emphasises the importance which rests upon these first Amendments in the Committee stage.
This is the reason for their importance. The whole of the Committee, as I understand it, are agreed that it is desirable that the Commission should sell their assets, if they are to sell them at all, at a reasonable price. The whole of the Committee are also agreed that, so far as is humanly possible, there ought to be made available to the public a reasonable continuity of efficient service during the transfer.
The point about the insistence upon speed in the first Clause of the Bill is that it is entirely inconsistent with the desirability of getting both a reasonable price

for the goods and a reasonable standard of continuity of efficient service for the public. That is why the Committee should attach the very greatest importance to these first Amendments.
It is deplorable that in a Bill of this kind, dealing with a great transfer of property on this scale, there should be this emphasis upon speed, and that speed should be selected as the factor that is more important than any other. Had that been done in any Measure in which private property was being taken over by the State, there would have been an ugly outcry from the other side of the Committee and hon. Members opposite would have been quite right to be outraged.
Of course, the whole humbug and deceit of the Conservative Party's attitude to this matter of property, of nationalisation and de-nationalisation, is revealed by the fact that they apply a wholly different series of standards of judgment in the case of nationalisation, on the one hand, and de-nationalisation, on the other hand. The Minister and the Government ought to be warned about this.
I am not admitting it, but it may be the case that public interest in public ownership is not so high or effective as some of us on this side of the Committee would like it to be. It may be, although I am not admitting it is the case, that, as a consequence of that, the public sees a transfer of ownership away from it without as much indignation as some of us would expect and would like to see. But if the public become aware that the transfer of assets from them to private interests is being made unfairly, unequally and with reckless speed, that will be just enough to light the flame of indignation against the treatment which public assets are receiving.
If the Commission hold back any transaction in order to provide a greater continuity of service in the public interest, by so doing they are not disposing of their assets as rapidly as is reasonably practicable. In the same way, if the Commission hold back for two or three weeks or for a month for a better price for their vehicles, they are acting, it seems to me, in direct contravention of the statutory requirements in the Bill that the goods shall be disposed of as soon as is reasonably practicable.
It is monstrously wrong that a body disposing of goods and wanting to wait perhaps a few days in order legitimately, as all sides of the Committee desire, to get a higher price, should by this Bill be made guilty of doing something illegal. It is not enough for the Minister to say, "But the thing will be sympathetically administered; we will watch that." He says, "We shall go very fast, but we shall not go in a disorderly fashion." With all respect to him, that is only his personal guarantee, and we want it written into the Measure that there should be an orderly disposal if there is a disposal at all.
It would have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have said that there must be a time-table. It is all very well for him to say that the disposal will be orderly, but there is not a single provision in the Bill which requires it to be orderly. Why should he not be required to be orderly in this matter? Is it not a very dangerous and insidious circumstance that he selects the matter of speed as the one matter on which he places so much emphasis that it is necessary to incorporate it in the Bill?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I think there is a great deal of exaggeration over this Amendment, and a certain amount of misrepresentation. The words proposed to be left out were correctly quoted by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). They are:
as quickly as is reasonably practicable.
They were quoted by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) as being, "as quickly as possible," which is something quite different.
The phrase here has to be read in connection with the Bill as a whole. In particular it must be taken in connection with the obligation on the Commission in subsection 2 of this Clause to conduct the remaining undertaking
without avoidable disturbance of the transport system of the country.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that the Commission were obliged by the terms of this Clause to put all the vehicles on the market at the same time. That is directly contrary to the wording of Clause 3, which directs the Commission to put them on the market "from time to time."
So far from this being a disorderly process, it is a process which is to be worked out in co-operation between the Disposal Board and the Commission. An orderly plan will be worked out between those two bodies, and if the Commission find that their obligation to avoid disturbance to the transport system of the country is endangered or infringed by the method of disposal, they have the right to go to the Minister over it.
There is another matter in the Bill which must be taken into consideration in interpreting this phrase which it is proposed to leave out. Those acquiring transport units will not, of course, be just buying lorries. As my right hon. Friend said, they will be buying businesses. They will be buying businesses to which the five-year licence attaches. It would be perfectly silly, when the five-year licence is a premium on the transport units to be disposed of, to delay more than reasonably necessary in the disposal. There is also the fact that at the end of 1954 the limitation upon existing A and B licensees to operate within the 25-mile limit will be removed.
Against that background it would be absurd to leave out of the Bill a provision that the disposal shall take place, within the general framework of the Bill, as soon as is reasonably practicable. Those are words which, if not essential, are required in the whole context of the Bill for it to be rightly understood.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I wish first to deal with the statement made by the Minister. I thought it a very frank statement, but, on the other hand, a very dangerous statement. The right hon. Gentleman told us, almost without apology, that he had consulted the Transport Commission and they had informed him that they were not only opposed to the disposal of the road haulage undertaking altogether, but that they felt the provision made in the Bill for the disposal of road haulage assets was unworkable.
Apart from that, the Minister is also brushing aside the viewpoint expressed by all the professional papers capable of dealing with the point of view of the transport industry. I have appealed repeatedly in the House that if we are to have transport, which is so vital to the welfare of our industrial life, brought into the political arena and have a Bill this time to de-nationalise it and, when the


next Labour Government come into office, a Bill to re-nationalise it, a disservice will be rendered to the industry and to the nation. I thought the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in moving this Amendment was very reasonable. It was one which I felt would serve the interest of the nation rather than serve a narrow political outlook.
I want the Minister and hon. Members opposite to try to visualise what the position in the industry will be on the industrial side if, arising from this suggestion of disposal with speed, a dislocation takes place in the industry itself. I want the Minister to realise that those of us who are associated with the road haulage side of the industry are not only entirely opposed to the Bill but are gravely concerned about the methods outlined in this Clause. It will not be sufficient for the Minister to say that the Government are, for purely political reasons, casting aside the sound advice of those who are competent to advise us and are recklessly adopting a political scheme purely to satisfy the desires of a few financial speculators. The Minister has admitted that it will not be possible to hand back the road haulage undertakings to the people from whom the Labour Government took them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the gloomy prophecies of some of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member are correct and only a modest proportion will be sold, every one acquired by the Socialist Government will obviously have opportunities to tender for vehicles and businesses available. The only fear would be if 100 per cent. of the vehicles were to be acquired immediately by other people, but, according to spokesmen of the party opposite, there is no chance of that happening.

Mr. McLeavy: The Minister cannot get away with a statement of that character. He has said from the Dispatch Box words to the effect that it was not physically possible to hand back the road haulage undertakings to the numerous people from whom they were taken under the nationalisation Bill. It is not a case here of handing them back to aggrieved people. The only question which arises is that the Government are proposing to sell these vehicles as quickly as they can, as quickly as possible, presumably to the first bidder.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. McLeavy: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. The Bill specifically lays down that they shall be sold
as quickly as is reasonably practicable.
That may be so, but the fact remains that the Minister is anxious to dispose of these vehicles as quickly as possible. If we were dealing with bankrupt stock, something which had to be got rid of at any price, I could understand his attitude. Here we have an undertaking essential to the nation, and the Minister proposes to deal with it in the same way as an auctioneer would deal with bankrupt stock.
4.30 p.m.
Has the Minister paid due regard to the interests of those employed in the industry? Surely they are entitled to some consideration. If the speed is cut out of the Bill and we allow the Transport Commission to dispose of the vehicles without undue haste, it may well be that not only will the interests of the industry be served by a smoother transfer from nationalisation to private ownership, but that the interests of the vast number of men engaged in the industry will be protected at the same time.
On a previous occasion, the Minister paid glowing tributes to the great war service of the men engaged in the transport industry. He said they had carried on the industry in spite of the bombs falling around them and kept both the railways and the roads free, supplying the machinery of war. This Bill gives no consideration to them for their loyal and devoted service to the nation. The Minister has not yet even decided to incorporate into the Bill sufficient and adequate protection for these men who gave of their best to the nation during the perilous days of the war.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may carry this Bill with a mechanical majority, but they should make no mistake about this: they will leave behind an atmosphere of distrust and hostility which will be very difficult to repair. These men, particularly those in the road haulage industry, are entitled to consideration by the Government. There is no consideration behind the idea of getting rid of these assets as quickly as possible.
On behalf of organised labour in the industry, I appeal to the Government to agree at least that there should not be undue haste in the disposal of these vehicles and that the Transport Commission should be given an absolutely free hand to carry into effect the operation of the Bill. The Minister will have adequate powers both in the Transport Act, 1947, and in this Bill to compel the Transport Commission to carry out their duties.

Sir Frank Soskice: We are so hemmed in by the Guillotine procedure which the Government have applied to this most important Measure that I rise now to carry the debate further upon its next stage and to wind up what has been said so far. A clear and cogent case was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and it has been implemented by other of my hon. Friends. What he said was that 35,000 vehicles are to be disposed of at a value of about £100 million. The Bill requires that they should be disposed as quickly as practicable.

Mr. Powell: "As is reasonably practicable."

Sir Frank Soskiee: As quickly as reasonably possible.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would permit me to intervene?

Sir F. Soskice: I will quote the words: "as quickly as is reasonably practicable." The inevitable consequence, we fear, is that there will be a glut on the market of these vehicles and that knockdown prices will have to be accepted: it will be impossible to absorb all the vehicles and, as the Transport Commission have said, the whole scheme will break down.
The Minister fairly said that the British Transport Commission were wholly opposed to this scheme and thought it unworkable—and that is our view. The Minister has not, in terms, refused to accept the Amendment, and I do not know whether he intends to do so. He is simply being asked to take the yoke off the Commission—this yoke of the urgent requirement of speed. He has not yet said whether he will accept the Amendment or not, although I inferred

from his answer that he does not intend to accept it. Replying to a question asked by my hon. Friend about the need for speed, his only reply was that the need for speed was the need for speed. He did not carry it any further than that.
His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) obviously shares our anxieties, because he is most unwilling to read Clause 1 in its apparent sense. He asks us to look at Clause 3 and refers to the words "from time to time." I want to ask the Minister whether he reads those two Clauses together in the sense in which his hon. Friend reads them. If he does, are we to understand that he contemplates that the disposal of these vehicles will extend over a period of perhaps many years?
We notice that the Road Transport Levy is to start on 1st June, 1954. Is that date connected with the period which the right hon. Gentleman thinks will be necessary for the disposal of these vehicles? Does he think all the sales will be completed
by the end of 1953? We do not know; we are left completely in ignorance in this matter.
I must confess that the Minister's reply, even supplemented by the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, still leaves us completely in the dark. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked, "Why so fast?" he said simply, "Because so fast." When he was asked how many vehicles he thinks he will be able to dispose of in a reasonable time, he replied, "I think quite a lot."
The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the British Transport Commission, who ought to know something about this problem, radically disagree with him, and I should like to supplement their disagreement by an extract which I have here from the "Daily Telegraph." I must be perfectly frank: I have not the date of the extract. It must be recent, and I think it is in September. I hope the Minister will pay attention to it, because the Road Haulage Association who are quoted, probably know what they are talking about. The extract refers to the questionnaire which was sent out by the Road Haulage Association in July—and it was sent out for the specific purpose of ascertaining what the likelihood was that these vehicles could be


absorbed on the market. The extract reads:
The Road Haulage Association has been informed that members are willing to buy back about 10,000 vehicles"—
that is to say, 10,000 out of 35,000
of those which will be offered for sale under the Government's proposals to denationalise the industry. This is the result so far of a questionnaire sent in July to members and former members whose businesses were acquired, asking for how many vehicles they would tender. There have been about 2,000 replies. About 200 members are not interested in the offer.
I think it was right to tell the Committee that I did not know the date to which this report referred, and it uses the phrase "so far"; but I ask the Minister to bear in mind that at that date, when some 2,000 replies had been received, it was stated that some 10,000 vehicles might be absorbed. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he thinks they all may be absorbed. Has he information which is more up to date than this?
Can he assure us that he has obtained from the Road Haulage Association or from some reliable source information that this figure of 10,000 is much below the real absorptive capacity of the market, because we do not think it is. This is the only information which we have, and we should like to have it supplemented.
If the Minister has no reliable information, which he can particularise so as to carry conviction, that this 10,000 figure is below the mark and that most of the vehicles which are to be offered will be absorbed within a reasonable time, then is there any possible reason he can give why this speed has been placed upon the neck of the Commission? If the vehicles are to be disposed of in a completely higgledy-piggledy fashion which will produce a glut on the market and absolutely knock down prices, then there is no other conclusion but that these words must come out of the Clause—the words which I hope I have now read correctly: "As quickly as is reasonably practicable"; and that the Minister should tell us that he will re-model the Clause as we desire in order that it shall plainly provide for the Commission to dispose of these vehicles over a period of years, if necessary, to make sure that proper prices can be obtained. The whole thing is being rushed through at break-neck speed with appalling loss to the community.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) is deserving of sympathy perhaps, in that he got the material words as to speed wrong, because the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who opened the discussion on this matter, said not once but, I think, three times that the phrase employed was
as quickly as possible.
I rise only to urge this view to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the words
as quickly as is reasonably practicable
must be construed by anybody concerned with this matter having regard to the terms of subsection (2) of Clause 1. If they are, it is perfectly clear. I do not desire to make this a matter of words in any sense, but merely to draw attention to it as the discussion is on words. And in so far as it is a matter of words, the words clearly are "reasonably practicable." The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the three factors mentioned in subsection (2). One of them is the disposal "on the best terms available."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know exactly what the Opposition want, whether they want to hear one or two other hon. Members or whether they want to hear from me again. I am prepared to speak, if they so desire.

Mr. H. Morrison: I will be quite frank with the right hon. Gentleman. We are working under a terrible Guillotine, and we are trying to divide up the time to the best advantage we can. From the Opposition point of view, if much more time is to be taken up by other people our chances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—our chances will be spoilt; and I say that if we have a Guillotine the Opposition is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Robert Boothby: On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is stretching that point a little. A Guillotine does not mean that no voice of criticism is to be raised on this side of the Committee. I propose to make a number of rather critical observations, and I do not see why I should not be allowed to do so by the right hon. Gentleman, just because we are under a Guillotine. I have been in this House for a long


time, but I have never heard that a Guillotine Motion was to be interpreted to the effect that the Opposition Members were to make a whole series of brief speeches, but that hon. Members on this side of the Committee would not be allowed to speak at all.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Sparks: I have not yet raised my point of order.

The Chairman: I thought the hon. Member said, "Further to that point of order." The point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) was not a point of order at all.

Mr. Sparks: I have a point of order to raise, Sir Charles. Is it in order for the Government to restrict the time for debating this Bill, and then, in the reduced time available, for the majority of it to be taken up by hon. Members opposite, thus depriving the Opposition speakers of their opportunities?

The Chairman: That is exactly the same point, and it is not a point of order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think there is some misunderstanding. We were told through the usual channels that the Opposition wished to bring this part of the debate to an end at 5.15 p.m. Apparently, it was meant to be 4.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I ought to say that in the message which left this side of the Committee the hour was 4.45. I do not know what time it was when it arrived.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure it was picked up accurately on this side of the Committee. It has not far to go.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) talked about the fact that we are applying a Guillotine. I will not delay matters by referring further to it except to say first, that this Guillotine is on the Floor of the House and not in Committee upstairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is Hobson's choice."]—and second, and just as important, if hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to look

at the Bill introduced in 1946 they will see that there were 35 Clauses which were not discussed at all, and that that is the exact number of Clauses in the present Bill.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) referred to the mechanical majority with which we would ensure the carrying out of everything which we desire. I think it is scarcely a "steam roller" in comparison with the purely arbitrary limits of 40 miles above which, everybody was clear and 25 miles, beyond which nobody else was allowed to go, imposed by the immense majority upstairs in 1947.
I take back no word I said in tribute to the road hauliers and the railwaymen for their work during the war—

Mr. Walter Monslow: Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness) rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Let me finish my sentence—who, whether publicly or privately employed, carried on their vital service.

Mr. Monslow: At what period does the right hon. Gentleman intend to lift the limit?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is in the Bill. The 25-mile limit will be lifted at the end of 1954. No doubt we shall have an interesting debate on that when we get to it.
4.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East said that there was no consideration for the devoted service of these men. But the transport work will still be there, and a large number of those now driving for British Road Services do not view the possibility of a return to private service with the antagonism with which hon. Gentlemen opposite view it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask them and see."] We, also, have our sources of contact with the people. And the trend of the recent by-elections since the full proposals of the Government were published scarcely bear out the comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As to compensation provisions, we shall come to those later, in their proper place. Many of them are lifted entirely from the Socialist Act of 1947. In so far as it has not been possible to meet every point of view of the trade unionists


and trade union leaders, I wish very much that they had accepted my invitation to consult in the early stages. But they did not do so, and it is certainly not my fault.

Mr. McLeavy: The Minister has told the Committee that the men employed in the road haulage industry will be assured of employment when their vehicles are sold back to private enterprise. Is he prepared to incorporate in the Bill a condition that the vehicles shall carry the staff with them, so far as employment is concerned?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course not, for precisely the same reason that the hon. Gentleman's own party did no such thing in their original Bill, in 1947.
Obviously, the traffic will be there and there will be a great demand for it. The vast proportion of people will be absorbed, but no one can undertake that there will not be one or two here and there who might, through any change, or in the ordinary passage of time, be rendered redundant.
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) talked about the absorption capacity and doubted very much and whether the estimates were correct. The questionnaire put out by the Road Haulage Association among their 17,000 members, some time ago, elicited only 2,000 replies. Those 2,000 replies gave an indication of an interest in some 10,000 vehicles. But 15,000 of their own members did not reply.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite can find anything ridiculous in that, when we remember how far the nation-wide campaign against this Bill has failed to materialise in the way that many of them hoped it would. It is my belief that there will be a great many more. We have had many indications to suggest that considerably more will be forthcoming to apply for these transport units.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman again made the mistake of saying that we are going to indulge in some indecent scramble. He used the words, "reasonably fast" and "fast" and words of that kind. But the words are strictly,
as quickly as is reasonably practicable
and by "practicable" we mean without undue dislocation of the transport services of the nation.
I accept from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it must be read in conjunction with Clause 3 and the vehicles put on the market from time to time—[Interruption.] It was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who made that point and not my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster), although we now have heard from him as well. The Bill must be taken as a whole. By "time" we do not mean over the years. It is our hope that it will be possible to finish with the procedure of disposal by the end of the year.
That is our hope, but, by the very provisions of the Bill, we retain flexibility. We shall have to watch current trade trends and the current demand. We have every hope that it will be possible, so that those who acquire these businesses will have one year of clear protection before the 25-mile limit is lifted at the end of 1954. That is our hope but, unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, we do not engage in any over-rigid demands in the Bill. We retain the initiative and the flexibility to meet the situation as it arises. I take it that the Committee has already realised that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: The Minister's remark about what the lorry drivers think is wrong. I claim to speak for the union which represents the overwhelming proportion of the drivers—at least 120,000. These men are unanimous in their opposition to the sell-out of the road transport organisation. All over the country at private and public meetings they have said clearly and distinctly that they are against this Bill in principle.
When they read the speech of the Minister and see that he said that it is hoped to sell out by the end of the year, there will be a lot more indignation among them than there has been so far. The Minister has completely failed to answer the questions put from this side of the Committee. He has not explained why there is this hurry. He has not explained how he proposes by the end of the year to get rid of the 40,000 lorries which the Road Transport Executive have and at the same time to carry out the conditions laid down in this Clause, part of which provides that the operation must be performed without interfering with the long-distance road transport services.
This is another illustration of the complete lack of any sense of public responsibility on the part of the Government. I hope that people will realise that the Minister has said and express their feelings about it when the time comes. The Minister is wrong about the view taken by the men in the industry. They are 100 per cent. against this Measure.

Mr. Robert Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of the 120,000 workers to whom he referred have attended the meetings of which he has spoken, or what proportion were consulted individually?

Mr. Gibson: A very much larger proportion than attended the meeting of the so-called and fake organisation we heard about the other day.

Mr. Boothby: I am all in favour of co-operation to make the Guillotine work, but when I see the Minister of Transport rise to his feet with profuse apologies because he has misunderstood the figures on a note—presumably passed under the Table from the Front Opposition Bench—reading 5.15 for 4.45, I begin to think that we are nearer being a Reichstag than I previously supposed. I am certain that a Guillotine is essential—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to inform my hon. Friend that I heard that the Opposition would like to get on to the next Amendment at 5.15. As I wanted to co-operate, I thought that it would be convenient if I intervened.

Mr. Boothby: I am delighted. I am not a member of the Opposition. Back benchers have certain rights, and if any hon. Gentleman thinks that he has a point worth making, he ought to be allowed to make it. I have one argument to put. It is small, but important.
Like the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), I was made rather uneasy by "The Times" leading article this morning. I am not sure that the Minister may not have been a little uneasy, too. I completely accept the assurance that the sales of these vehicles will be conducted in an orderly manner. I do not see any necessity for amending the Bill in that connection.
What worries me is this. If we go ahead, without any precautions of a statutory character introduced into these Clauses, with the sale of these vehicles

at the speed which the Minister indicated—he suggested that they should all be sold by the end of next year and that the 25-mile limit will be removed—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At the end of the year after.

Mr. Boothby: Then I am afraid that we shall be placing upon our roads a volume of traffic and a number of vehicles greater than they are capable of carrying. That is by far the most important point, and it has not been mentioned
by either side. Hon. Gentlemen referred all the time to what the market can absorb. I am not interested in that. I am interested in what the roads can carry. That is what worries me, and that is the point I wish to put to the Minister. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend can say that I am talking nonsense until he is black in the face—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)rose—

Mr. Boothby: I have been told that many times, but I have often proved that it was not so. I say in a friendly spirit that if that happens and if over the next five years we put an absolutely uncontrolled volume of motor vehicles on the roads, then a future Government will have to introduce a Measure for the control of transport far greater than anything which the House of Commons has passed so far.

Mr. Wilson: I really could not allow the remarks of my hon. Friend to pass without intervening, because the whole of his argument was based on a misconception. The sale of these vehicles will make no difference whatever to the number of vehicles on the road. It will merely mean a transfer of ownership from one type of owner to another.
I believe that the number of vehicles
which will be saleable is grossly exaggerated. The number of A and B licence holders on the road today is about 150,000, and there are about 820,000 C licence holders. Against that, British Road Services own only 41,000 vehicles; but the number that they own is not the number they run. Table X-15 in the Accounts for 1951 shows the stock owned by British Road Services to be 41,265. Subtracted from this total are vehicles under the following headings: "stored, 431; unserviceable, 1,692; awaiting disposal, 779." Then a line is drawn—

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put accordingly, and agreed to.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out from "of," to the end of line 11, and insert:
such of the property held by them for the purposes of that part of their undertaking which is carried on through the Road Haulage Executive as the Commission may determine not to be required by them for or in connection with the carriage of goods by road in any manner which, in the opinion of the Commission, will promote the public utility and the efficiency of the services provided by so much of their undertaking as is carried on through the Railways Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive or the London Transport Executive or as is now carried on through the Road Haulage Executive in services associated with those executives hereinafter in this Act referred to as 'the retained services'.
I wish to express my regret to hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, as well as my own, at the brevity of the last debate. We are going to have some more experiences of brevity as we go along, because we really are in an awful hole. This Guillotine is here, and, though I sympathise very much with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby), the Opposition is bound to try and shape its own course of action in order to try to get what time they want devoted to the things they consider most important.
My hon. Friends had submitted themselves to the self-denying ordinance of not speaking in the debate, and we thought that there ought to be co-operation from both sides of the Committee, as far as that is possible, but when we are driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was—and quite rightly driven—to move the Closure in order to protect the rights of the Opposition—for that is what he did, and quite rightly so—I submit that if ever there was conclusive proof of an abominable anti-Parliamentary device, then this Guillotine is it. Therefore, if the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire wants to talk about a Reichstag, that is where it started from—over there.
This Amendment is, in some respects, related to the earlier Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The difficulty which I think
the Committee is in, and I hope the Government are conscious of it, is that we are liable to be landed into a disorderly, unorganised and somewhat chaotic sale of road transport commercial assets, without taking any account of the needs of the country in respect of the provision of commercial road transport. That is the problem.
The Government wish to get rid of the publicly-owned commercial road transport, up to the amount which they have stipulated, as soon as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Practicable."] Well, all right; I am not quoting the Bill, but the Government's intentions. I am quoting what the Government are getting at. They regard public ownership as poison, and they want to get rid of it as quickly as they can, whether the public interest is injured in the process or not. That is the Government's policy.
What we are concerned about is this. First of all, we object to the disposal altogether, but we say that the disposal, if it is to take place, should take place in an orderly manner, and that it should not take place to such an extent that it becomes impossible for the British Transport Commission and its Executives to provide a reasonable transport service, both by road and rail. That is the matter with which this Amendment is concerned.
Therefore, though we are driven to accept the principle of disposal, because that was embodied in the Bill which has received a Second Reading, we do not agree with it. Indeed, we totally disagree with it, but I agree that it is part of a Bill which has received a Second Reading. Therefore, the principle of disposal is one to which we have to work. We suggest in this Amendment that the Commission should be required to engage in disposal, but that it should not be required to engage in such a degree and method of disposal as will make it impossible for it to provide—or to provide its elements in the provision of—reasonable road transport and rail services.
The Government have also accepted the principle that the British Transport Commission, as part of the conduct of the railway undertaking, shall be able to


utilise the services and work of a certain number of commercial road vehicles. They have arbitrarily based that on a
proportion which has some sort of relationship, though not exact, to the number of road vehicles which the railway companies possessed before the Act of 1947 was passed. That seems to us to be arbitrary and to be unduly limiting, but it is an acceptance of the principle that the railways or the British Transport Commission can provide a certain amount of commercial road transport.
This Amendment, inadequate as it is in relation to our desires, is nearer to the policy which Parliament approved on the application of the private railway companies some years ago, because, quite rightly, Parliament did then approve of the private railway companies being in a position to run as much private commercial road haulage as they desired, or as they were capable of doing, in association with the railway undertakings. That was, indeed, a greater freedom than we are claiming in this Amendment, but, in so far as it was the case that the private railway companies were given authority by Parliament to engage in commercial road transport up to the maximum extent which to them was practicable, surely it is reasonable that the British Transport Commission should be afforded a reasonable discretion as to the degree of the disposal of commercial road transport units under their control?
It may be said that this gives power to the Commission to play "merry drakes"—I am not trying to get out of order; I nearly said "geese," but just saved myself. In order to protect the Committee against that possibility, may I say that it will be seen that there is on the Order Paper a later Amendment which requires the Commission or the Railway Executive to act within 12 months, and, therefore, that danger is safeguarded.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire referred to "The Times," to which I also referred last week in friendly terms, as other hon. Members did on Friday. It is true that "The Times" in its leading article says this:
For by obliging the Commission to sell as quickly as possible"—
this refers to the Bill—
it does not leave room for the Commission to retain any of the properties (except of those corresponding broadly to the former

road haulage holdings of the railways) or to delay selling until sales can be made on terms which are not only financially satisfactory but will preserve the efficiency of present services.
That is a serious criticism of the Bill, and I am glad that the Minister has reported on the attitude of the British Transport Commission. If I may say so, I think he is quite right. My own view about the constitutional relationship between Ministers and publicly-owned industries under public corporations is that the public corporations have a right to disagree with the Minister and even to make it known, though, on the whole, it is perhaps best that the Minister himself should make it known. Similarly, a Minister has a right to disagree with a public corporation, and to make that known. Therefore, I do not think that they should be the slaves of one another, but that, on the whole, they should have it out and agree to it.
It is because this is such a tragic happening for the British Transport Commission, which was getting on with a constructive job, that I do not wonder that they are opposed to it, and that they regard it as being totally unworkable. Indeed, I think it is, and the result of all this is that we are going to have a disposal of the commercial road transport system in the months that lie ahead, and the fact that the Minister is trying to do it all by the end of 1953 is going to land him in particular difficulties.
What was being built up, and what ought to be built up, were two systems of road commercial transport, one under the Commission with through routes. I entirely agree that if there is a lot of cut-throat competition on route A.1, and others, going from South to North, we should have a terrible position on the roads, with a risk of a lot of trouble.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Why?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman looks astonished and says "Why?" That is because he is a natural anarchist. When he grows up and becomes a statesman, he will understand. At the moment he is a natural anarchist, and he looks like it.
The result of the work of the Commission was that there was gradually being built up, side by side with private industry, an organised network of road services with a national backbone to


them, and that was all to the good. We were developing something like the elements of a national road transport service. But private enterprise was still permitted under the 25-mile limit arrangements, under C licences, rightly or wrongly, and in certain other respects. It may be that there was too much of the one and too much of the other, but I do not think there was too much of public ownership. What the Government are doing now is leaving us without the elements or the basis of something like a decently organised system of road commercial transport.
Our Amendment, whilst not making the Bill perfect, would at any rate give the Commission the opportunity of retaining such road commercial vehicles as will enable them to provide the essentials of a national backbone, so to speak, or the skeleton, of road commercial transport services, with private enterprise providing the other elements. For these reasons we commend this Amendment to the Committee. We warn the Minister, with great respect, that if he continues on the way he is going he may well have a chaotic situation in road commercial transport, not only during these months but thereafter. The wording of the Amendment may be capable of improvement, but we think that the spirit of the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee, and we hope that it will be given sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Irvine: On a point of order. Are not the two Amendments, in page 2, to leave out lines 1 to 3, and to insert:
The property of the Commission to be disposed of under this subsection is hereinafter referred to as 'the disposable road haulage property'
and in line 4, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) The Commission shall within twelve months of the passing of this Act determine which of the property held by them for the purposes of that part of their undertaking which at the passing of this Act is carried on through the Road Haulage Executive will not be required for the purposes mentioned in the preceding subsection and their duty to dispose of property under that subsection shall not extend to any property not included in that determination. The Commission shall report the said determination to the Minister and such report shall be evidence of the determination:
Provided that the Commission's duty to dispose of the disposable road haulage property may be discharged in such manner and by such stages and with such postponements of the sale

of vehicles or other assets forming part of the disposable road haulage property as they may with the approval of the Treasury decide, and pending the discharge of the said duty the Commission shall be entitled to use the disposable road haulage property together with any other property for any of the purposes of their undertaking
directly consequential upon the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend? Will it be in order if the Committee takes this opportunity of discussing them all together?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is proposed to call the first of those Amendments, but if the Committee prefers it, they could be discussed together.

Mr. H. Morrison: With respect, if it is acceptable to you and the Committee, I think that my hon. Friend is right in the submission he is making. I think they are inter-related.

The Deputy-Chairman: If it meets the convenience of the Committee, they can be discussed together.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I rise to support the submissions made by my right hon. Friend. Our great anxiety is to make sure that in the political struggle which is going on over this matter the nation should not suffer. In our view, we have a first responsibility of ensuring that the economic life of the country is so regulated and conducted that it does not suffer from any kind of nonsense which might be introduced. Our fears are that unless there is discretion and a reasonable amount of time in which to do this job, industry and trade will suffer very seriously indeed at a time when we can ill afford it.
Anybody who has had any experience of the Road Haulage Executive work knows that over the years they have built up a fine system, the beneficial results of which we are only just beginning to appreciate and enjoy because they have been so painstaking and laborious in their work, and hurriedly to unscramble this excellent work would do the nation no good service.
5.15 p.m.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister gave us an assurance that the Commission would be left with sufficient vehicles to become a first-class competitor; that it would have enough vehicles to
make the British Transport Commission the largest road haulage undertaking in the country,


and all the people who want to see what happens in friendly rivalry between different forms of transport will have an opportunity of seeing that now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1418.]
He went on to refer to the Pickford's Division of British Road Services. It would be out of order for me to go into details about what the Minister said on Second Reading, but I submit that he was misinformed when he suggested that there would be a reasonable chance for the Road Haulage Executive to operate and conduct its services in fair competition with the newcomers.
I have here a letter from one of Pick-ford's staff, which in a few words outlines the position which will emerge. He refers to the Minister's statement on 17th November that
the British Transport Commission would be the owner of the largest road haulage fleet in the country and it would be interesting to watch this fleet run in competition with vehicles owned by private firms.
He—
that is, the Minister—
informed us that if the Commission retained the whole of the present Pickford's set-up it would almost absorb the unladen weight that the Act will allow the Commission to keep, and that Pickford's do not at present possess vehicles which could be operated on trunk services in an efficient and economic manner. To run an efficient and economic trunking service,
as the Road Haulage Executive are now doing, the Commission would need to have a large fleet of 14-ton vehicles and my information is that Pickford's do not possess such vehicles.
How, therefore, can the Minister say, as he did on Second Reading, that under his proposals the Commission will retain a considerable proportion of the vehicles and will be in a position to compete? It can be demonstrated that the very fine trunk services will break down, and it is for that and similar reasons that we think there ought to be more time to consider this whole problem.
We are all anxious that the country should have the best possible transport service, whoever is running the show. If we are required by the end of December, 1953, to complete this job—a job which has taken some three or four years of hard laborious work by men who have loved the industry and whose life is invested in it—we shall find that we shall only just be reaping the benefits, and the Government will then be throwing it all

away. The Minister said that the Road Haulage Executive is losing money today. It is losing money, but not for the reasons he has in mind. It is losing money because there is already a scramble and cut-throat prices, with worsening conditions in the industry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With a subsidy.

Mr. Davies: What we are anxious to conserve are good conditions for men in the industry. If the noble Lord is prepared at any price to unscramble this industry to suit his friends who, we believe, are the paymasters of the Tory Party, to the detriment of the country, that is not our view. We take the view that the acceptance of this Amendment might save us from the worse results. I hope that the Government have listened carefully to and taken note of what my right hon. Friend said and will make some response to it. I hope also that the Minister will take particular note of what has been said about Pickford's, particularly with regard to trunk services.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The implication of the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) about the losses of the Road Haulage Executive being due to a falling off in trade and industry in this country is that these trunk services should be retained no matter what happens. That would mean that somebody would have to subsidise them. I want to go wider and to suggest that the hon. Member was really contemplating an unnecessary disaster in the idea that he had that we were seeking to bring the whole trunking services of the Road Haulage Executive to an end.
We want to bring to an end the Road Haulage Executive's ability to run these trunk services, but if the hon. Member suggests to the Committee and to the country that these services are not to go on in any form, he is quite wrong. Of course they are. The implication is that private enterprise will take up these services and run them more efficiently and more thoroughly.
I was very surprised at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) lending himself to this Amendment. I read it with a great deal of amazement. Here is an


Amendment, emanating from the Front Bench of the Socialist Party, designed to cut out a whole chunk from the original Act. They are prepared to see the Road Haulage Executive go by the board and they are concerned only to see that enough vehicles are provided to serve the docks and inland waterways, London Transport and the railways.
We should like to hear the reason they want this done in this way. They have to accept that the House of Commons has decided in principle that the Road Haulage Executive should be wound up and its vehicles dispersed, and this Amendment is in no way an attempt to restore the principle which they lost on Second Reading of the Bill. I wonder if the country will understand it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not if the noble Lord can help it."] I will do my best to explain it to my constituents. There are very fundamentally true and important reasons why this Amendment has been moved in this way, but I cannot prevent this Order Paper flying about the country or prevent associations of politically-minded people up and down the country from Land's End to John o'Groat's discovering with amazement that the Socialist Party are now prepared to jettison a whole sector of their own scheme for the transport industry.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South has put his hon. Friends in an extremely false position by moving an Amendment of this kind. It does not do their case justice. We in this Committee and the country would have understood it if, having failed on Second Reading, they had attempted to put down carefully prepared Amendments designed to upset the general character of the Bill. But this Amendment is of a constructive and presumably permanent nature. This is the Socialist Party's new thought on transport, presumably. If it is not, then we are left in a state of wild confusion, and we should really be told what it is.
This Amendment, of course, will be turned down by the Committee and we shall go back to the country and seek to excuse hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and explain their actions, but I think that it would come very much better if, before the Committee rejects this Amendment, as no doubt it will, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South explained in cogent

terms which the country can understand whether it is new Socialist legislation, whether it represents a new post-de-nationalisation world of Socialist thinking or is just a little procedural thing to keep the debate going in a pleasant way.

Mr. Sparks: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) really did exhibit a profound ignorance of transport. Really he should know, and I think that the Committee well know, that it is the intention of the Government to permit the British Transport Commission to retain only that proportion of road haulage which the private railway companies had in 1947, plus one-fifth of that strength.
That is quite inadequate for the reason that it does not take into account the changes that have taken place in the past four years, based upon the integration particularly of road and railway services. Let us take branch lines, for instance. British Railways closed down quite a number of branch lines which became uneconomic or were not paying very well. They were able to do that because they had a road haulage fleet. Instead of using locomotives and railway trucks to convey goods traffic from a junction to all the stations on a branch line, they have now been able to create a fleet of lorries, under the administration of the Road Haulage Executive, to perform precisely that function.
The intention of the Government is to permit that road haulage undertaking to be privately owned in future, and the British Transport Commission are to be deprived of that service which the Road Haulage Executive have taken over from British Railways as a result of the policy of co-ordination.
There is also another very important factor which the Government have completely ignored. Everybody knows that in the winter months the railways of this country are faced with greater difficulties of organisation than face them in the summer months. Bad weather and other factors cause a tendency to congestion. It has been the policy of the British Transport Commission to relieve the congestion at railway marshalling yards by using the road haulage fleet to convey traffic and to clear the bottlenecks, and by that means to reduce the delay. This is an additional facility which has been developed in the past four years.
How will that be done in future under this Bill? Private road hauliers will not be interested in doing anything of that kind, yet British Railways will not be able to maintain that service because they are being compelled to dispose of their road haulage fleet, and that service is not included in the allocation which the Government are proposing on the basis which I outlined earlier.
It is also a well-known fact that in London particularly and also in many provincial stations where congestion arises, as it is likely to do in winter months especially at Christmas time, the road haulage service is augmented to relieve congestion at terminal stations and to convey the traffic from congested areas to the outlying stations and wherever the traffic is needed. That is to be pruned away from the railway services.
5.30 p.m.
Then, again, there has been a very considerable extension of what is generally known as throughout-road-rail services. What I mean is this. As I mentioned in the Second Reading debate, there is a service that has been built up in the past four years whereby certain traffics are gathered together here in certain parts of London and are loaded into containers which are then conveyed to the London terminal stations. They are then conveyed to certain points in the country—I mentioned Glasgow, in particular—and at that further point the road haulage organisation undertakes the distribution at that end.
This type of traffic is being conveyed from London to Scotland at a saving of 36 hours. That is all in addition. That has nothing to do with the former railway companies' road haulage fleet. This is an additional integrated service built up by providing a road haulage organisation in London and a road haulage organisation at the other end in Glasgow, or Bristol, or in many other parts of the country, where the traffics are co-ordinated together between rail and road.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Mr. Patrick Maitland (Lanark)rose— —

Mr. Sparks: I have no time to give way to the hon. Member. Other hon. Members want to speak, and I want to be as brief as I can in putting these points, because they are absolutely germane to the issue that we are now discussing.
The Government's policy is to disintegrate that service, because private road hauliers will not be interested in what is called short-distance traffic. They will not be interested in pooling traffic in London in order to give it to the railways so that the railways can have the greatest remuneration from it. Nor will the private hauliers in Scotland be ready to take the traffic from Glasgow, and deliver it short distances because it will not pay them to do so.
In fact, the Government propose to abolish the 25-mile limit because they want more vehicles to run on the trunk routes. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) was quite correct. The abolition of the 25-mile radius will inevitably congest the trunk routes of our country. Many of these integrated services which
have been built up in the past four years will now have to be cut away and divided. The Minister is giving 12 months for this to be done. The thing is absolutely ridiculous. All the vehicles have got to be sold in 12 months.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not say that they all had to be sold. I said that it was hoped by the Government that
the disposal would be carried out by the end of next year. We have retained adequate flexibility if it does not seem desirable to proceed at that speed.

Mr. Sparks: That is the difficulty. The Bill will presumably not go on the Statute Book until Easter, so that actually the period is about nine months. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that to think that he is going to disintegrate in nine months a process which has taken four years to evolve is far from reality. I feel that if the Government are really interested in maintaining the efficiency of our transport organisation, all these additional factors must be taken into consideration.
But the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in moving the Second Reading, that there was no integration of road and rail. He is really showing his complete ignorance of this subject, because there has been a very substantial integration of road haulage and rail transport. The essence of this Bill means a complete undoing of that co-operation between these two forms of transport which must penalise the railways and throw transport into a state of chaos for some considerable time.
Therefore, I feel that if the Government are really concerned with the transport organisation of our country and not with private interests, they will accept this Amendment, because it does at least attempt to protect the British Transport position, British Railways and the docks and inland waterways, so that they may gather round them just so much of the road haulage organisation as is essential to maintain the existing services. That is the least that they can do if they want to go forward with their main proposal of disorganising the road haulage organisations.

Mr. Powell: There have been a number of references already in this debate to the leading article in "The Times" today. The tones in which that famous newspaper addresses us are many and varied. There is the tone, for example, which earned for it the old soubriquet of "The thunderer." But the tones which we heard this morning were much more reminiscent of a scolding aunt.
She began by scolding the Government for having no Amendments on today's Order Paper to this Clause, though, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) inadvertently pointed out, she had misread Subsection (1) of this Clause in the same way as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had done. There is, however, no reason for the Opposition to exult—

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the terms "as quickly as reasonably practicable" and "as quickly as possible" are synonymous if the whole operation is to be completed in nine months?

Mr. Powell: I do not think they are synonymous, and there is nothing in the Bill which says that the operation must be completed in nine months.
There is no need for the Opposition to be prematurely elated, because the next spanking was administered to them. They were rebuked for having put on the Order Paper a wrecking Amendment, and their operation was described as follows:
They propose blandly that the Commission shall merely have the duty…of selling the assets it does not need for providing efficiently its present services, including those of the Road Haulage Executive.
The terms of the Opposition's Amendment are not those at all. Yet there is

a certain poetic justice in this. After all, the Government have been criticised for some time by people who have not troubled to read the Bill. It is only fair that the Opposition should be criticised by people who have not troubled to read their Amendment. If we study the terms of the Amendment carefully, the adverb "blandly" attached to their action in putting it down will appear to be anything but appropriate. However, I shall return at a later stage to examine what in effect the Amendment means, or may mean.
In the meantime, I want to consider the constructive criticisms, or the would-be constructive criticisms, which we had in the third part of that leading article—in fact, the Amendments which the editor of "The Times," had he been an hon. Member of this House, would have placed on the Order Paper, though of course they would have been starred. The first suggestion was that there should be an Amendment to enable the preservation, within the sphere of competition, of the benefits of larger-scale operations. This suggestion arises from a failure to read Clause 4. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that 20 per cent. more than the transport resources owned by the railways on 1st January, 1948, may be transferred back to companies to be formed by the Commission.
My right hon. Friend, in words which have already been quoted in this debate, paraphrased the effect of Clause 4 as follows:
…we propose that the Commission should be allowed to retain a body of vehicles broadly approximating to what the railways had before nationalisation, with an addition to allow for what might have been the increase in the years since…. This will make the British Transport Commission the largest road haulage undertaking in the country, and all the people who want to see what happens in friendly rivalry between different forms of transport will have an opportunity of seeing that now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1418.]
In order to have that opportunity, they do not need to put an Amendment on the Order Paper. That opportunity is provided by the terms of Clause 4.
The second suggestion was that there must be Amendments to preserve the continuity of efficient service. Whether the service being provided at present is efficient is precisely the moot point. However, the Bill as it stands, in Clauses 1 (2) and


3 (6) and (7) makes adequate provision
for the undertaking to be carried on efficiently during the period of transition. It would be foolish to attempt to write into the Bill precise and restrictive terms governing the disposal, when we are setting up a Disposal Board to work in conjunction with the Commission in doing precisely that job.
When I first read this Amendment I felt that it must be a product of some carelessness or inefficiency in drafting, but after I noticed that it bore the name of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), who was formerly Attorney-General, I felt that that could not be so and that what appeared at first sight to be the effect of careless drafting must have some underlying object.
As I read the Amendment, it prohibits the retention by the Commission of any assets of the Road Haulage Executive other than those which are necessary to promote the efficiency of the railways, canals and docks and the London Transport Executive. Stopping at that point, all this is fully provided for in the present Bill. If hon. Members will look at Clause 1 (4) they will find that the Commission retain the right to continue and to expand any services whatsoever which are needed as auxiliaries to promote the efficiency of their other activities.
So the point of the Amendment must turn upon the remaining words, which say that they are to be allowed to retain such part of the assets now used by the Road Haulage Executive as are used by that Executive "in services associated with" the other Executives—the Railway Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and the London Transport Executive.
Thus the whole meaning of this Amendment, if it has one, turns upon the question, what are the services now provided by the Road Haulage Executive which are "services associated with" the other Executives? In a strict interpretation of law—I see that the former Solicitor-General the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) is on the Opposition Front Bench and it may be that he will be able to help us further on this matter—I venture to doubt whether any services at all provided by the Road Haulage

Executive are "associated with" the other Executives. I doubt whether that expression has any legal interpretable meaning.
5.45 p.m.
Without holding the Opposition to exact drafting, however, let us consider the alternative interpretation which might have been intended to apply to it. Many references have been made to the integration achieved by the British Transport Commission between the operation of the Road Haulage Executive and its other Executives. So for enlightenment I turn to the last Report of that Commission to see what, in the wider sense of the term, these "associated" services might be. I find them set out at the bottom of page 4 of the Fourth Annual Report, which says:
The Road Haulage Executive have provided a collection and delivery service at a number of centres on behalf of the Railway Executive and the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive…
That is a service which is covered completely by the terms of Clause 1 (4) of this Bill. The Report continues:
… and they also provide for the Railway Executive zonal collection and delivery services….
Again, there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Commission retaining or developing those services.
Finally, there is the cross-country traffic which is worked where a rail service has been suspended, or in supplementation of one; but it was precisely for that purpose, among others, that the railways owned or managed road haulage undertakings before vesting day, and whatever they owned or managed at that period, plus 20 per cent., is going back to them. So there is power on the part of the Commission to provide those services as well.
The only way in which this Amendment can be made to extend what is already provided in the Bill—it is arguable that, strictly interpreted, it is actually restrictive and would prevent the operation of Clause 4—would be by regarding the words "associated with" as covering all the activities of the Road Haulage Executive. If we say simply that the British Transport Commission were obliged to provide an integrated transport service under Section 3 of the 1947 Act, any service they provide might be regarded as "associated" with the services of their other Executives. But we are stopped from taking that course by the expression "so much of" the Road Haulage Executive


undertaking as falls under this description.
As a solution of this conundrum which the Opposition have put before the House, I would offer a suggestion on the lines already adumbrated by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). The Opposition have been in a difficulty. In the Amendments they have put on the Order Paper they have had to hide a division of opinion which is really unbridgeable. They have had to draft Amendments which could be interpreted narrowly or widely according to the taste of whichever section of their supporters was considering them. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that there is some support for that view.
When the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was winding up in the Second Reading debate, he followed very closely the terminology of the Labour pamphlet, "Facing the Facts." He said:
When we are returned to power we shall take over such units as are necessary for an Integrated long-distance public system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1709.)
If we regard it from that point of view, this form of words is a clumsy attempt to translate that undertaking into Parliamentary drafting.
But there are other Members in the party opposite who believe, and have stated, that a mistake was made when A, B and C licences were left outside nationalisation. They want some expression of policy which can be made to cover the absorption of all transport into a State monopoly. If we look at the words of this Amendment in that sense, we could understand the word "associated" accordingly, and we could feel satisfied that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench have not let us down.
What is before the Committee is neither a wrecking Amendment, as "The Times" took it to be, nor a constructive attempt to improve the Bill; it is a form of words which is designed to conceal the unbridgeable difference of opinion on the future of transport in this country which exists in the ranks of the Opposition.

Mr. Irvine: It says something for the dialectical ingenuity of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that he can include a quotation

from a leader in "The Times" of today in a speech directed to supporting the Bill. As he read "The Times" this morning with his habitual earnestness, he must have recognised that the leader constituted a bitter, sustained attack upon the Bill.
One cannot contrast the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) because on foreign affairs and some other matters the noble Lord illumines our discussions and utters expressions of thought with which he finds a great deal of agreement on this side of the Committee, but that compliment can never be paid to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
In the Amendment we are concerned with providing for a continuity of transport service to the public, a consideration which seems to have been entirely lost sight of latterly in speeches from the other side of the Committee. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West paid no regard to how the public interest is to be affected by the dislocation which is bound to occur. We cannot have a transfer of ownership on this scale without having, at least, dislocation. I say "dislocation" because I do not believe anybody can describe it as an exaggeration. Speaking on another Amendment earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West accused the Opposition of exaggeration and, in an unguarded moment, he went on to speak of "misrepresentation." Be that as it may, it cannot possibly be regarded as an exaggeration to say that there will be a dislocation of the service when the transfer of ownership takes place.
The Amendment is designed to diminish that dislocation to the public service and to provide continuity for it. That is where I thought the noble Lord failed to do justice to the Amendment. He asked whether this constituted Labour's new thought on transport. It is nothing of the kind. Confronted by the great folly of the Bill, we want to insert provisions in it which will in some degree diminish the harm which is bound to occur.
In reply to the question, How will it be possible in the public interest to reduce to a minimum the amount of inconvenience which the public will suffer through


this transfer of ownership?, the only answer is that we must call in aid the Commission. They are the only people who can help. The Commission, which is being abominably treated, as will be widely recognised on both sides of the Committee, is the only body which can really assist in the provision of continuity of service and in diminishing as far as possible the dislocation that must occur as a consequence of the transfer of ownership.
The Disposal Board will be entirely unable to apply its mind usefully to the problem, for it is entirely outside the Board's province. The Minister, with all respect to him, will know nothing about it unless he refers to the Commission. Therefore, the Commission is the only body extant which has it within its power to take steps and to follow measures which will reduce to a minimum the amount of inconvenience which the public services will suffer.
How can they do it? They can do it only by being given power to phase the transfer in accordance with the requirements of public interest. The insistence upon rapidity of transfer is, in principle, entirely wrong, and the Amendment is valuable in that it gives power to the Commission, which is the only body which can usefully exercise it, to phase the transfer and control the timing and the nature of the transfer in a fashion which will reduce to a minimum the amount of inconvenience which the public will suffer as a consequence of this transfer of ownership.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friends will profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) that there need be any dislocation or any inconvenience whatever in an ordered process of transferring the long-distance lorry fleet, with the garages and other fixed assets, from public ownership to private ownership. In fact, it is to be spread over a period of 12 or 18 months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nine months."] There is no guarantee that it will be nine months. My right hon. Friend said he hoped to achieve it in nine months. On the other hand, it might be six months. If we take a flexible period of six to 18 months, my argument is in no way vitiated.
A British Road Services depot serves a certain area of the country and certain trunk routes. If that depot and service are sold as an operable unit, the private owners assuming responsibility for the road service concerned will assume with it all the functions which were formerly performed by the British Road Services. There is every reason to suppose that the period of transition will be both smooth and satisfactory.
I am delighted that the Deputy-Chairman delayed calling me for a few moments, for that has allowed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to resume his seat. His speech was quite unrealistic and almost entirely academic. No doubt my hon. Friends sympathise with him, in that he has been closeted in this House for a period of nearly 30 years, with one brief exception of a period of four years, when he was away from the House. The concomitant of that is, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman has little or no practical experience of the operations of trade, commerce and industry. He speaks on these matters with fluency and charm but lacks any sort of practical experience.
The right hon. Gentleman fell into exactly the same error as did his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) when he suggested that the disposal of the British Road Services' lorries would result in a glut of vehicles on the market. No such thing will take place. All that will happen is that there will be a transfer of ownership; there will not be a single additional lorry on the roads of the United Kingdom as a result of the transfer. What hon. Gentlemen opposite consistently forget, in all their arguments on this matter, is that the global or aggregate number of vehicles plying on long-distance transport in this country is controlled by the volume of the goods to be carried and the demand for the lorry services.

Mr. Percy Collick: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can possibly say that. The White Paper published by his party indicates that with these proposals goes the transfer of traffic from the rail to the roads. How can he argue that the number of lorries will not be greater?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman should go away and read the White Paper and learn the contents of it. I am arguing the misconception that has consistently been voiced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, namely that the disposal of these publicly-owned vehicles will result in a glut on the market. In fact, the demand for long-distance road services will, at all times, control the aggregate number of vehicles plying on the roads of the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Jones: Why abolish the 25-mile limit, then?

Mr. Nabarro: That will be abolished on 31st December, 1954. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] More competition. That is precisely where I come back to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South. When I asked him why there should not be additional competition on the Great North Road, what did he say? That I was an anarchist for advocating
competition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, hon. Gentlemen opposite support the view that any hon. Gentleman here or outside this Chamber, who believes in the beneficial effects of the forces of competition, must necessarily be an anarchist. Really, the right hon. Gentleman can put that propaganda over on the eve-of-the-poll, but it does not go home very well either in this Committee or with considered and informed opinion in the country.
Let me dwell on the second point which has consistently been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, notably the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), that during this transitory period of selling off the British Road Services vehicles there would be a breakdown in the long-distance trunk services, and that when private ownership resumes operation less efficient services would be conducted than we have had under public ownership. Those of us in this Committee who remember the conditions in trade, industry and transport before nationalisation have a long enough memory to know that some of the privately-owned, long-distance road operating companies were far more efficient than British Road Services.

Mr. Sparks: They took the remunerative traffic.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman says they took the remunerative traffic. I am concerned in my constituency in the Midlands with trade and industry on a considerable scale, and in the Birmingham area. The hon. Gentleman will have heard, for instance—I mention one company at random—of MacNamara's, who were a famous road haulage company, in the days before nationalisation, and specialised on the London, Birmingham and Liverpool routes. Do hon. Members opposite really imagine that, first, British Road Services have provided an improved service, better than that of MacNamara's—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."], or second, that it is not within the capabilities of privately-owned transport to resume the services with an efficiency comparable with that of MacNamara before nationalisation?

Mr. G. Lindgren: Whilst the hon. Gentleman is correct in regard to the trunk routes, since British Road Services have operated Shropshire and Herefordshire have had a service they never had before.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman may be intimately concerned with transport conditions in Northamptonshire, but I represent a constituency which borders on the two counties of Herefordshire and Shropshire. British Road Services today are not providing any single service on a better scale or with more efficient running than was provided before nationalisation in those areas. I know that by the infinite number of complaints I have had on this score since I first became a Member of the House of Commons.
The third point hon. Gentlemen opposite dwelt upon today is their complaint that the process of selling units back is going to result in some deterioration in the conditions of employment for those employed in the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My reply to the hon. Gentlemen shouting "Hear, hear" is simply this: what are the trade unions doing if they allow that to take place? The conditions and the terms of employment have been regulated by employer-employee consultation and agreement through the trade unions and other appropriate organisations, during the last 15 to 20 years, and there is no reason why that satisfactory consultation should


not be allowed to continue. Private ownership will not lead to a deterioration of terms and conditions of employment. On the contrary, it may well lead to an improvement, for, within my experience—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had better keep that for the eve-of-the-poll.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman's mimicry is almost childish. I accused the right hon. Gentleman of that. On the contrary, in my view there will not be deterioration from the employees' point of view, for it is my experience that whenever there has been an advertisement in the Press by a C licence holder, or by a private company, to fill a vacancy amongst lorry drivers, the greatest number of applications have come from those employed by British Road Services who are eager to return to private employment. I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment out of hand, and put in the place where they rightly belong the spurious arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Working under the Guillotine, as we are, I find myself in some difficulty. We had hoped that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had moved this Amendment, we should have had a reply to his arguments from the other side, but I understand that the Minister prefers to wait until we have all spoken on this side, and then to have the last word.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no last word in Committee. He can speak again after I sit down, if he wishes.

Mr. Davies: That would be all very well if we were not working under the Guillotine, but if we do not exercise some self-restraint in our speeches it will mean we shall squeeze out some of the very important Amendments which we still hope to discuss despite the Guillotine.
The case for this Amendment was made very clearly by my right hon. Friend, and I do not think that any of the speeches which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite have in any way demolished that case—certainly not the

one made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I cannot quite follow him when he suggests that there is going to be more competition on the roads but there will not be a single additional vehicle. How can there possibly be more competition and no more vehicles? It is just an impossibility.
But even if it were the case, and if his illogic were correct, does he not appreciate that one of the great advantages resulting from the organisation of the British Road Services is that there are fewer vehicles on the roads carrying more goods, that there is better organisation, and that, particularly with vehicles running at night, the danger on the roads has diminished since British Road Services came into being? If this Bill goes through, there is no question but that the danger on the roads will be substantially increased.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Davies: I am not going to give way. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not been very co-operative in regard to the Guillotine, and so I do not wish to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I very much doubt whether the hon. Member has taken the trouble to visit any of the depots of British Road Services, because it is quite clear, from the remarks he made, that he does not understand how the British Road Services are organised today.
He suggested that we could sell off as units various depots as they exist today, and that there would be no dislocation in the services. Does he know that in London the goods which are transported every night on the directional trunk routes are cleared from the whole Metropolis—brought to these various depots, loaded in full loads and sent over the country? The break-up of that organisation would not be able to save all the empty running or partial running which is saved at the present time.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Davies: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that, however many times he gets up, I regret I cannot give way. I want to consider the argument the Minister put forward on Second Reading and that has been repeated twice today. It is that if this Bill goes through in its present form, the Transport Commission will still be operating the largest road haulage undertaking in the country.
It may be that they will own the largest number of vehicles—we do not deny that—but the Minister knows that if at the present time they are allowed to retain their six-fifths of what the railways owned on vesting day, 1st January, 1948, the majority of those vehicles will be those who are used today on Special Traffics (Pickford's) Division.
Those vehicles are running a particular kind of service, and if they are retained by the railways and continue to operate these special services they will not be available to compete in the ordinary road haulage business, and thus competition between the Transport Commission, as the largest owner of vehicles, and ordinary road haulage, as operated by private enterprise, will not exist.
If that is not to be the case, and if they are to be returned for the purpose of running road haulage or of continuing the integrated services operating at present, then it means that the Commission will have to sell off this very profitable section of its business which is known as the Special Traffics (Pickford's) Division.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that it is not possible to have it both ways. We cannot operate the Special Traffics (Pickford's) Division, which is a profitable section, and, at the same time, continue the feeder and zonal services to which he referred in his speech. The Transport Commission may be the largest owner of vehicles, but it will not be the largest road haulage operator.
That brings me to the object of this Amendment. It is not what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West thinks; it is not a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Powell: I did not say that; I said the opposite.

Mr. Davies: Neither is it based, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, on the desire to build up an organisation for the future. Its purpose—and this I would point out to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—is to salvage what we can from the wreck. The noble Lord suggested otherwise. We wish to preserve, as far as that is possible under this Bill, the integrated services which have been built up with great difficulty and with the expenditure of a large amount of hard work during the last few years.
I think the Committee should appreciate the extent to which integration has taken place. Not only has there been an extension of the feeder services, but a considerable amount of traffic has been transferred from road to rail, and vice versa. In addition, there has been integration in parcels traffic. A parcels service has been created which serves no fewer than 13,000 places in this country between any two of which parcels can be sent. This service involves the use of 7,300 vehicles, and there is an average of 250,000 consignments each day.
It seems to me that if we disintegrate and break up that parcels service and break up the feeder and zonal services there is bound to be the dislocation which the hon. Member for Kidderminster denies. The Minister hopes that this break-up will be achieved within a period of nine months. But how can we in nine months, without causing dislocation, break up an organisation which has been acquired over a period of four years, the last acquisitions of which only took place as recently as October, 1951? I warn the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South that when his rural constituents find that as a result of this break-up they are getting a worse service at higher cost, he will have more trouble in his constituency than he has had already.
6.15 p.m.
The object of this Amendment is to preserve as far as possible the integrated services and the nucleus of a national transport service. This Bill as it stands destroys the whole concept of transport as we understood it when we drafted and passed through this House the 1947 Measure. I ask the Minister, if he rejects this Amendment, what guarantee he can give us that the existing services operated by the Road Haulage Executive will continue in areas which are so sparsely populated that it does not pay to operate them.
What guarantee can he give us that areas in which it is unprofitable to run transport will be served in the future? Further, what guarantee can he give us that the integrated services of the Commission, as we understand them at the present time, will continue? If he cannot give us a guarantee that they will continue in the event of this Bill becoming law, how can he possibly justify the action he is taking? Surely, it is not in


the national interest to destroy what has been established over the last few years.
This Amendment provides the means for preserving some of the achievements of the British Transport Commission during recent years. We on this side of the Committee do not regard this Amendment as being even a second best to the present situation, nor even a third best, but it is something, and I appeal to the Minister to consider it seriously. The right hon. Gentleman told us earlier this afternoon that the British Transport Commission is opposed to the selling off of the Road Haulage Executive vehicles. He said that they were further opposed to the manner in which it was proposed to sell them off.
That was something about which he quite rightly informed the Committee, but I suggest to him that he should ask the Transport Commission whether they would be in favour of the Amendment which we are now discussing as a means of salvaging something of a national service for the Commission and to encourage those engaged in trying to build it up to continue to work to that end.
I commend this Amendment to the Minister and ask him to give it his serious consideration, and to consult, even at this late stage, the Transport Commission it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that, though the last Amendment at the bottom of the first page of the Order Paper was the one moved, we are also discussing the Amendments in page 2 to leave out lines 1 to 3, and in page 2, line 4, to insert a new subsection (2). I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will acquit me of any discourtesy in that I did not speak earlier on, but I thought it better to wait and hear the whole case on these three Amendments deployed by the Opposition and then to end the debate on them with one ministerial speech instead of two.
These three Amendments deal with kindred matters. The first proposes to leave to the Commission—

The Chairman: I was under the impression that the Amendment at the bottom of page 69 was taken together with the one at the top of page 71.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Though the suggestion, Sir Charles, did not come from

these benches, we certainly understood that with the Amendment at the bottom of page 69 we were also considering the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, to leave out lines 1 to 3 in the name of the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), and the one to Clause 1, page 2, line 4, in the name of the same right hon. Gentleman. I thought that was intended.

The Chairman: I thought the Amendment at the bottom of page 69 went with the first Amendment on page 70.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Amendment I moved at the bottom of page 69 was, I understood, to be discussed with the second and third Amendments on page 70. The first Amendment on page 70 deals with an unrelated point.

The Chairman: What about the first one on page 70?

Mr. Morrison: We were not proposing to include that, Sir Charles.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad we have cleared up any possibility of misunderstanding, though what Scotland will say to the right hon. Gentleman for describing it as an unrelated point we can wait to hear until we come to deal with that Amendment later.

Mr. Morrison: Why is the right hon. Gentleman trying to be funny about that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not. The three proposals before the Committee are these. The first is to leave to the Commission the decision as to what it is necessary for them to retain for certain purposes; and I share the doubt of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as to whether the Opposition clearly understand the consequences of the phrasing which they use in that Amendment.
The second Amendment is to set a time-limit in which the Commission have to determine how the disposal is to be made and at what pace, subject, I think, only to Treasury approval. The third Amendment is linked with it, and it says that the Commission have a year during which it can make up its mind as to what businesses it wants to retain.
In dealing with the first Amendment, I am afraid that I must advise the House to reject it. In our view it is quite impracticable to leave it to the Commission


to settle how many vehicles, and what kind, it requires, because we know perfectly well—and there is no discredit in this—that the Commission believes in the possibility in the foreseeable future of an integrated transport service.
We do not believe that this is possible. The Commission, therefore, cannot be made the sole guide as to what number of vehicles should be retained. This is not in any way because we doubt the loyalty with which the Commission would carry out the requirements of Parliament, and not because we fear that the Commission might play—I think the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "merry drakes"—with the undertakings. He was careful not to use another word, although I would remind him that in classical times Rome was saved by a goose—and that is not such a rude observation as might be thought.
It is not the case that we doubt the ability of the Commission or its integrity. It is simply the case that in our view the Commission are not able to settle themselves what vehicles they should retain, because the Government have made up their minds that long-distance road haulage should no longer remain a State monopoly. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the first Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also to the retention by the Commission of those vehicles that the old railway companies possessed prior to nationalisation in 1948. That point has also been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) and, I think, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies).
It seems to us—and I think that the whole Committee agrees with this—clearly inequitable, if once a decision is reached to restore the pattern of competition in long-distance haulage as it was before 1948, that either the railways or the Commission should be prevented from having those assets which the old railway companies enjoyed. So we have worked into the Bill provisions whereby the Commission or the railways can withdraw from the auction the vehicles which broadly correspond in number and size to the assets which the railway companies enjoyed, and we have added to this the right to add another 20 per cent., in order

to take account of any natural growth that there might have been.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East dealt with the case of Pickford's. He said—and it is true—that a substantial part, but not the major part, of the Road Haulage Executive undertaking is now in the Pickford's Special Division. He no doubt remembers that their profit last year, which was not a net profit and only just covered overheads, was £3 million, of which nearly £1 million was met by Pickford's, and it is a little difficult, I think, to call in aid the profits of Pickford's on the one hand, and, on the other, to complain that the Commission may be left with Pickford's.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Mr. Ernest Davies rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He said that it might be that I was right in saying that the Commission would have the largest road haulage undertaking in the country. But that would be only possible if in fact the bulk of their vehicles was concentrated in the Pickford's Special Division. The proposals of the Government are that the Commission shall withdraw from auction vehicles corresponding to the vehicles that the railway companies had before nationalisation. Since then, the Pickford's Division has grown very considerably, and a large number of other undertakings have been added to Pickford's Special Division which are in no sense the inevitable heirs of the old Pickford's business.
The hon. Gentleman said that the majority or a very large number of the road haulage vehicles would be Pickford's
vehicles. I think that these are accurate figures—it is difficult to be quite certain—but I think that if he will look at the figures he will find that while it is true that some 3,000 vehicles are in the Pickford's group now that the Commission have control of that group, when the railway companies had control of the Pickford's undertakings the number was 1,553. So the Pickford group has grown in number from 1,553 to 3,091. Therefore it is not true to say that the bulk of the vehicles now enjoyed by the Commission would be the vehicles in the old Pickford's group.

Mr. Ernest Davies: My argument is this. That Pickford's, as the Minister has now said operate something like 3,000


vehicles today. If the British Transport Commission are to be able to retain only the same number of vehicles plus one-fifth, as they did in 1948, that means that it might only be roughly some 3,000 vehicles which are retained for that purpose, and therefore they will all be engaged in Pickford's traffic, and that will preclude them from carrying on other road haulage because their vehicles are used for that purpose.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That would be true should the Commission choose to keep all their vehicles in the Pickford's group. When the Commission make certain decisions, they must naturally accept the consequences of those decisions. The hon. Gentleman is not really right in his figures. When the 1947 Bill was going through Committee, the most that the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) could say was that he thought that 2,000 vehicles to 2,500 would be taken over. Of course, the figure was quite untrue. Some 3,558 vehicles have in fact been taken over, and there will be a considerable increase through the 20 per cent. increase which the Commission will be allowed to enjoy.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister admit this? If the Commission are allowed to retain only six-fifths of their vehicles of 1948, they will not be able to carry on both Pickford's excluded traffic division and the integrated feeder services which they are now operating.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, I agree with that. If that were not so, the Road Haulage Executive would be retained in toto. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The whole point of this Clause is that there should be competition in long-distance haulage. I will come later to the question of Pickford's in relation to what the hon. Member for Acton said. Although, of course, the Commission will be limited to the vehicles they have or which the railways had before nationalisation, plus a 20 per cent. increase, and they will not be able to take a larger slice from the Road Haulage Executive undertaking than that, there is nothing to stop the Commission in the future, through the normal course of events, making application to the licensing authorities to extend their fleet in the usual way.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Davies: Why sell off then?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is nothing to stop them, if they can prove need, going to the licensing authority.

Mr. Davies: Then why sell off the vehicles?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Member clearly understands that the purpose of this operation is to introduce competition into long-distance haulage. We are confident that the result of that will be greater efficiency and a cheaper cost in the running of those services. If the Commission, having this largest share of all, which makes them the largest undertakers in the country, choose to go to the licensing authority in the future to deal with any increased business which may be available, they are perfectly free to do so. I take it that the Committee would not wish to curb their right to go, like any other undertaking or private individual, to the licensing authority.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Is it not the case that the Pickford's Special Division deals particularly with the exempted traffic which was not nationalised in 1947, and has been competing successfully with the other road traffic undertakings?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was coming to that point in a moment when dealing with what the hon. Member for Acton said.
I should like to deal with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), who sent me a note to say that he and the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) had had to go to broadcast to Africa at this hour, thus explaining his inability to be here. He was under a misapprehension. Until the end of 1953 there will be no increase because of the provisions of this Bill in the number of vehicles on the road. There will be a steady transfer of the Road Haulage Executive's vehicles to private enterprise, but the net number of vehicles will not, through anything in this Bill, increase. After the lifting of the 25-mile limit in 1954 there may well be an increase, possibly a substantial increase. All these people will then be subject to the ordinary licensing system.
They will have that right like everybody else—[Interruption.] The hon. Member has not got this point clearly. The only people who get a five-year run free of application to the licensing authority are those who buy businesses from the Road Haulage Executive. This will be for the period until the sale is over, however long it may take. There will be a steady transfer from public to private ownership but the number of vehicles will not thereby be affected, only their management and ownership.
After the lifting of the 25-mile limit there will be applications to the licensing authorities and the usual period—five years or whatever period they choose to attach to the granting of a licence—will apply. No one will have automatic rights after the lifting of the 25-mile limit, because we are preserving the licensing system. Is that not a good thing? I thought most people were in favour of the retention of the licensing system. Anyone will be allowed to extend their operations beyond the 25-mile limit for the period of their licence but applications for new licences will have to be made to the licensing authority in the usual way.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going back on the proposals of the Bill, which provide that where the vehicle is sold a purchaser obtains a five-year licence. If a vehicle is purchased in 1953, the purchaser will have a licence until 1958 and will not be subject to the licensing authorities.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is exactly what I said. Really, I think that the remark of my hon. Friend who said he doubted whether some Members had clearly read the Bill does appear to be a very fair comment. Those people who buy businesses will buy with them the right to run with a special A licence for five years, but that does not lead to an increase in the number of vehicles, because those vehicles are already on the road as the property of the British Transport Commission. After that, all applications to provide further traffic on the roads will go before the licensing authorities in the usual way. I was not dealing with the point of the people who buy these businesses.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North dealt also with a point in regard to Pickford's. It was a little difficult for me to know clearly what he had in mind.

He seemed to take the view that as Pickford's have no long-distance interests, the Commission, if it retained Pickford's only, would not be able to take part in long-distance work. I hope that I have dealt in part with that point in reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Enfield, East.
A quick analysis of the Pickford's figures shows that there are some 426 heavy haulage vehicles in the Pickford's group at the moment compared with 145 before nationalisation. The number of trailers has increased by 50 per cent. I do not know whether that deals with the point that the hon. Member had in mind. I repeat, if he is not satisfied, that it is for the Commission to make up its mind how to use the facilities which later Clauses of the Bill provide for the withdrawals from the auction of a very large number of vehicles. When the time comes to consider that part of the Bill, we can discuss in detail what the Committee feels about the proposals of the Government in that respect.

Mr. Edward Davies: During Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Road Haulage Executive would be in a position to compete, that he was working for reasonable competition. The amount of road haulage—this is the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—which will be at the disposal of the Commission—six-fifths—will, if they continue the whole of the Pickford's business, absorb the increase that has gone on and to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Pickford's vehicles are designed for special purposes and therefore it will not be possible for the Commission to retain to the same degree the services which they have built up to enable them to compete. That will not be possible because the global figure will not permit them to have the necessary vehicles because Pickford's have not the specific vehicles now running which would be required to do the job.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is only repeating again what the hon. Member for Enfield, East said, that it will not be possible for the Commission to carry on the whole of their activities now described as the Pickford's Special Division and also engage in large-scale undertakings elsewhere. The Commission must make up their minds; it is not for


me either in the Bill or in any other way to tell the Commission what vehicles they ought to withdraw from the auction.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North also referred to profitable enterprises being withdrawn from the Commission, and he then said, "or if not profitable only unprofitable now because of the threat of disturbance which is causing people and traffic to leave the services of the Road Haulage Executive." Of course, that is not true. I do not wish to go at great length into the financial position of the Road Haulage Executive, and nothing that I might say on that account now or when speaking later means that I am in any sense blaming them for the difficulties which an impossible obligation imposed on them. The total net traffic receipts of £4.7 million over the past four years compare fantastically with the £10 million that I think we all agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—an anlysis certainly leads one to think it is fair to say that the expropriated businesses were making prior to nationalisation.

Mr. D. Jones: The Minister has had something to say about the fact that the Road Haulage Executive will not be able to pay its way this year. Will he deny that the cost to the Executive for fuel is £5 million more this year, due directly to the action of the Government; that it will cost them about £8 million more in wages, due again to the direct action of the Government; and thirdly, that it will cost them £1 million more in insurance because of the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is scarcely a very valid argument. Fuel increases, normal increases in insurance—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We had quite a debate about that some months ago. I should be out of order if I went into details about the insurance figure. Leaving aside the £1 million increase for insurance, the fuel increases and the increases in wages which the hon. Member said were due directly to this Government—I very much doubt whether he will use that sort of phrase in his constituency—fall equally on private operators and the State undertaking. As I have explained in the House when giving permission to the Commission within a short time of their asking to raise their freight rates, they

obviously confronted the Commission and private undertakings with very considerable problems.
There is one correction I should like to make. I think the £5 million increase in fuel is spread over all the Commission's activities, ports, harbours and railways. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I stand to be corrected, but my recollection of the statement that I made in the House a few weeks ago was that the increase in fuel for all branches of the Commission amounts to £5 million.

Mr. Jones: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will take it from the hon. Gentleman and if he is wrong no doubt he will correct it, as I will do if I am wrong. As I said, these fuel increases fall on private and public transport services.
The hon. Member for Acton referred to the vehicles which were withdrawn from auction and made a number of interesting comments. I should like to say that when I was asked a Question within a few weeks of my appointment as a result of which an analysis was produced of what the railway companies owned before nationalisation, I was exceedingly surprised by some of the figures that were presented to me and I pondered on them for a long time. I have taken them very much into account.
The hon. Member said that this 20 per cent. increase took no account of the changed conditions and circumstances. A great many private hauliers know that the size of their own fleets has not increased since nationalisation. Even the short-distance hauliers are not altogether happy about what might be called the arbitrary right to the Commission to take another 20 per cent. out of the undertaking before it is disposed of. I was very anxious that this 20 per cent. should be conceded, for it seemed to me to be a reasonable token between what might be the increase in comparable activities in other parts of the country and under other managements, and no increase during the same period.
6.45 p.m.
The hon. Member said that this would take no account, for example, of the closing down of branch lines. That is precisely what it does. It takes account of that sort of thing and encourages the Commission to take whatever action is right for an economic service. In future


the Commission can close down a branch line, and then under the Bill go to the licensing authority to get a licence to enable them to provide an alternative service.
The hon. Member also said that part of the road haulage fleet was used sometimes to help the railways and he asked what would happen then. If he will turn to the Clause we are now discussing and glance at the proviso at the end of subsection (5), he will see the answer to his question:
…the Minister may direct that any property held by the Commission at the passing of this Act, or thereafter obtained or appropriated by them, partly for or to the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and partly for or to other purposes shall be treated, or shall not be treated, as property held by the Commission for the purposes of that undertaking.
That will enable me to see that where the Road Haulage Executive were running a service for the railways, that would not be part of the undertaking which must be compulsorily disposed of. It was precisely to meet the sort of point the hon. Member has in mind that that particular provision was inserted.

Mr. Steele: Does that include the six-fifths?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I can assure the Committee that I have taken a great deal of trouble about this matter since I was appointed. I have not been in transport for my living, but I have acquainted

myself with the background of this great industry of which I am proud to be the Parliamentary spokesman.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of his intentions with regard to that subsection of the Bill? Can he guarantee that he will use this power under that subsection in order to enable the railways to work in co-operation with road haulage as at the present time?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I say that where this is already happening we will take account of it, but I cannot give an open invitation, so that the whole of the haulage fleet is put at the disposal of the railways, and, therefore, withdrawn from the Bill. But consistent with the general policy of Her Majesty's Government, I will look sympathetically at anything that will fall within that proviso.
I have dealt at some length with the various points raised, but we are debating three Amendments in one and I hope the Committee does not think I have been unduly long. I must ask the Committee to reject all three Amendments, which would strike at one of the prime purposes of the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 267.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Braine, B. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crouch, R. F.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Davidson, Viscountess


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Baker, P. A. D.
Bullard, D. G.
Deedes, W. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Burden, F. F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Barber, Anthony
Butcher, H. W.
Donner, P. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Sir David
Doughty, C. J. A.


Baxter, A. B.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Carson, Hon. E.
Drayson, G. B.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Channon, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Duthie, W. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Colegate, W. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Birch, Nigel
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Erroll, F. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, Sqn-Ldr. Albert
Fell, A.


Black, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Finlay, Graeme


Bossom, A. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fisher, Nigel


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.




Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fort, R.
Lindsay, Martin
Roper, Sir Harold


Faster, John
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Russell, R. S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Longden, Gilbert
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gammans, L. D.
Low, A. R. W.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Scott, R. Donald


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.
Shepherd, William


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCallum, Major D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gridlay, Sir Arnold
McKibbin, A. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimond, J.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Snadden, W. McN.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Soames, Capt. C.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Speir, R. M.


Harden, J. R. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stevens, G. P.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maude, Angus
Storey, S.


Hay, John
Maudling, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Studholme, H. G.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Summers, G. S.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor William (Bradford, N.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Teeling, W.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holt, A. F.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tilney, John


Horobin, I. M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nutting, Anthony
Turner, H. F. L.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hurd, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vosper, D. F.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wade, D. W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Watkinson, H. A.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Kaberry, D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Rayner, Brig, R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, M.
Wills, G.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
York, C.


Leather, E. H. C.
Robertson, Sir David



Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Robson-Brown, W.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Baird, J.
Blyton, W. R.


Adams, Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Boardman, H.


Albu, A. H.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bence, C. R.
Bowden, H. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benn, Wedgwood
Bowles, F. G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Benson, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brockway, A. F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bing, G. H. C.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Awbery, S. S.
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blenkinsop, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)







Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Richards, R.


Carmichael, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cattle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Ross, William


Coldrick, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)




Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Kinley, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Field, W. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fienburgh, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Thornton, E.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Thurtle, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Tomney, F.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moody, A. S.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Usborne, H. C.


Glanville, James
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Gooch, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wallace, H. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mort, D. L.
Webb, Rt. Hon M. (Bradford, C.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moyle, A.
Weitzman, D.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mulley, F. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
O'Brien, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.
Wigg, George


Hardy, E. A.
Oswald, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hargreaves, A.
Padley, W. E.
Willey, F. T.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, David (Neath)


Hastings, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Pannell, Charles
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Parker, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hobson, C. R.
Peart, T. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Holmes, Horace (Hamsworth)
Popplewell, E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Houghton, Douglas
Porter, G.
Yates, V. F.


Hubbard, T. F.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.



Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after "property," to insert:
(other than property held by them in Scotland).
As the Guillotine falls at eight o'clock on this Amendment, many of my hon. Friends who want to speak will exercise a self-denying ordinance, and they have authorised me to state the case for Scotland. I believe that in this case I am speaking also for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who will obviously not be in a position to be as frank with the Government, because of their party loyalty, as they would otherwise be. I think that the proposals I make in the Amendment will be the best arrangement for Scotland, and, indeed, for the Government.
Everyone who has spoken on this question of Scotland has admitted that Scotland has a quite separate problem and ought to be treated accordingly. The Minister of Transport, in his Press conference on the Bill, seemed to indicate that there would be special treatment, but I must say that his statement was of rather sinister import. According to the "Edinburgh Evening News"—and I am sure that they did not concoct this out of their imagination—the Minister said:
Scotland has been singled out for special attention because the monopoly of road and rail traffic by the State is greater there than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is not verbatim.

Mr. Woodburn: It is a report of the right hon. Gentleman's Press conference, which, I presume, he took himself. I am sure that the newspaper did not imagine this when they reported it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will put that right.

Mr. Woodburn: This statement admits that the integration and development of transport in Scotland has proceeded further than elsewhere and it is to be inferred that this will bring upon Scottish transport some greater form of disorganisation. What is the mystery about the Government's plans for Scotland? They have had ample opportunity for disclosing them. Failure to do so has created a very uneasy suspicion that either the Government have no plans ready at all—and that is conceivable because neither Minister has taken steps

to make himself acquainted with Scottish problems at first hand—or their plans are such that no Scots M.P. on either side of the Committee would dare to vote for them.
It is not necessary for me to go on making a case for leaving Scotland alone, or for leaving Scotland to make a still greater integration of its transport. The Scottish Council for Industry has stated the case publicly. According to the Press, they have argued the case privately in interviews with the Minister. There is no indication that they have been given any satisfaction. They state the position quite clearly and entirely freely from the point of view of practical people.
7.0 p.m.
The minimum essentials they lay down are a transport authority with sufficient power (a) to integrate road, rail, coastal shipping and air activities; (b) to eliminate costly waste in duplication, overlapping and non-co-ordination of services; (c) to secure the cheapest reliable and speedy collection and delivery of goods. These are businesslike objectives. Does the Government accept them? That is not a rhetorical question, so I hope the Minister will answer it frankly. Does the Government accept these as the principles necessary for an efficient transport system in Scotland?
I do not claim that after a few years there is either complete integration or that everything is satisfactory in Scotland as regard road transport. Yet the manager of one of the largest units of transport outside British Road Services told me last week that he and his colleagues in the transport industry are astonished at the success which has attended the efforts of British Road Services in establishing a nation-wide road service of transport in Scotland. It is a great credit to all those who are operating it.
British Road Services took over a number of small units with an average number of three vehicles each and welded them into a network of road and rail services that have covered the whole country. Is that to be broken up to go back to the anarchy of three lorries per man? Not only have we in Scotland a great degree of devolution from the Central Board but there is already a system of district and local management.


As is natural, the management districts are centred on the four large cities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Dundee and Glasgow. Within those main districts there are 26 groups working from 130 depots and sub-depots. They took over 4,000 vehicles.
As I explained last week, they had to scrap 1,200 vehicles as unfit, but they are now doing far better work with 3,600 vehicles than was done by 4,000 vehicles under the old system. It cannot be denied that there will be more vehicles on the roads if we go back to a system of overlapping, duplication and multiplication of transport.
The one criticism that has been voiced of the Scottish road transport system is that there is not the personal attention that existed formerly. So far as my personal inquiries are concerned, this is contrary to the facts. I am not denying that the people who owned transport formerly gave good personal service, but in the circumstances, they could not possibly give the service which has been given by the Scottish road services. Every user of Scottish road transport has a manager within his call who gives him where necessary personal attention.
Because this is important I shall give one or two illustrations that have come out of my inquiries. One interesting thing is that British road transport has no monopoly in carrying livestock. That is still an open field for the competition of private enterprise. However, the Scottish road services have been so successful in obtaining the confidence of the agricultural population that 50 per cent. of the farm vehicles owned by British Road Services are in Scotland.
What used to happen and what still happens was shown in a case that came before the licensing court where farmers gave evidence in favour of a private enterprise owner who wanted the right to take livestock to Torquay. When they were asked why they wanted this man to take that traffic instead of using the return services of drivers who came north, they gave as the reason that they would not trust their livestock to those drivers because they were too sleepy as a result of having driven overnight.
This was an admission that the practice of driving long distances to Scotland without stopping was breaking the law. The

interesting thing was that, when the contractor who wanted the contract to deliver the livestock to Torquay was asked how he would get it there, he admitted that his driver also would drive straight through. A glance at the map to see the distance from the constituency of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) to Torquay will show that the driver who goes that distance is not working within the law.
British Road Services have been able to offer a service that is unequalled in this respect and have been successful in attracting the interest of the farmers because of its reliability, speed and care of the animals. As a result, their traffic is continually building up. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) knows the Lanark market well and there the farmers are no fools, as he also knows very well. In the course of a conversation between a noble Lord and another friend who was shifting valuable cattle to the south, and discussing who should be engaged for the job, they were advised by their friends to take British Road Services if they wanted their cattle looked after.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I think the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that there is a large amount of that livestock carried by private enterprise in preference to British Road Services. I see no prospect whatever, knowing Lanark market very well indeed, that British Road Services will be entrusted with the whole or anything like the whole of that traffic.

Mr. Woodburn: But it is a long time since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was at Lanark market—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me, I was there last week. I am chairman of a company and it is part of my business. I know Lanark market very well indeed, and I am constantly engaged there. The right hon. Gentleman should acquaint himself with the facts before attempting to mislead the Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: The facts are that in Lanark market and in the markets of Dumfriesshire the farmers are turning more and more to British Road Services. While, as I have said, there is open competition in this matter, the reliability of


British Road Services is beginning to overcome even the prejudice of the farmers, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows is a great obstacle to the use of any nationalised industry.
My next point is that the kind of services they are offering is something that private enterprise normally cannot offer. It is quite true that in the case of private enterprise, if the vehicles are owned by the farmers, they put their man in charge to look after the livestock, but if he is driving from, say, Dumfries to Torquay he is in no condition to look after livestock with the care that British Road Services can offer because their men are driving within the legal hours and are fresh. Further, cattle often calve on the journey, and after the calf is born the driver takes it into the cabin with them to keep it warm. I came across an interesting case in which a driver entered in his log book, "Two punctures and one calf."
This kind of personal service is beginning to make itself felt amongst the farmers, and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will now inquire among some of his noble Friends he will find that they are using British Road Services in preference to private enterprise, which may sometimes leave the cattle for an extra two days before they take them on the road and deliver them—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Member does not give way, the right hon. and gallant Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must try to find some other way of making his remarks.
Another case that I should like to instance comes from the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). Berry picking nearly came to a stop because of the absence of crates. A telephone call was made to the road transport manager at Dundee on a Friday afternoon, and by the Sunday morning sufficient crates were delivered from Manchester to enable the picking to be continued. That kind of

service cannot be done by a ragged lot of odd private enterprise firms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) there is a great new organisation for manufacturing tractors and combine harvesters. In 1950, they booked an order for 4,500 combine harvesters to be delivered in 1951. Because of mechanical holdups they were hardly ready in time, but because there was a nation-wide transport system the Scottish Road Services were able to call on vehicles from all over Scotland and some from England, and they were able to get those harvesters delivered to the farmers in time. No organisation except a nation-wide system could possibly have done it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What the right hon. Gentleman says is all wrong.

Mr. Woodburn: I could give many more instances, based not on theories, but on facts discovered from personal inquiries.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Give way.

Mr. Woodburn: It ought not to be necessary—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Really the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is most disorderly.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—

The Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) must resume his seat.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was only going to ask—

Mr. Woodburn: I could argue this with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman all night, but this debate is under sentence of death at 8 p.m. by his own Government.
I could give many more examples, but I ought not to need to tell the Government of this. They ought to have found it all out. I implore them, however, not to break up an organisation which is serving the needs of Scotland and which is being improved every day. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that left to ourselves, we would organise an economical


transport service. We cannot afford to risk the Scottish economic well-being by taking a blind leap into the dark by guesswork.
The other day the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) tried to tell us what the Bill would do for Scotland, but his speech, which I have read again, was really one of vague hopes that everything would turn out all right. Scotland has problems which are best tackled by a co-ordinated transport system. As the Government seem determined to denationalise road transport since, to quote Shylock, it is in their bond, we on this side tried to draft an Amendment embodying the Scottish Council's proposal. But, like the Scottish Council, we found that it was quite impracticable to integrate Scottish transport without keeping the ownership of the road vehicles in the hands of the Commission. Therefore, we had to give up trying to make a job of the Government's proposal for Scotland.
I challenge the Minister to say how, when the Government have sold off the paying routes in Scotland, they will continue the present services to rural parts of the countryside. Are the rates to be increased to try to make the remainder solvent, or are the services to be reduced? Is the Inverness depot to be closed and are the Highlands to be left once more to themselves? We have been fighting depopulation of the Highlands for generations, and during the last few years we were able to arrest it, but without cheap transport nothing can save the Highlands of Scotland.
7.15 p.m.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he will ensure that rural services get the benefit of the flat rates that are possible by the national system. Fifty per cent. of the road passenger omnibus traffic in Scotland is uneconomic and has to be maintained by the populous areas, which, I am informed, have the cheapest transport in the world. The same thing is happening with road transport. The private transport rates between Garve and Ullapool are something like twice those between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which is about the same distance. If we have a national system, it is possible to give Gerve and Ullapool the same flat rates as the Lowlands, but if the cream is taken off how can Scotland be given the services that it has now? Who is to give them? Are they to be subsidised?
There is another reason why Scotland should be left out of the Bill. Eighty per cent. of the goods uplifted in Scotland by road transport are delivered in Scotland and, therefore, to a large extent there is a great, independent road transport system at work within Scotland itself. We have a landward area, much of it hill and upland, of 29,000 square miles and the dense industrial population is confined to 1,000 square miles. Obviously, there is no possibility of that 29,000 square miles having an economic transport system with any regularity unless it is based on the economic prosperity of the industrial power. Transport is the lifeblood of our rural Scotland. Without it, it cannot long survive.
We want Scotland left out of the Bill, and I think that in saying so I speak for all the industrial, commercial and other people of Scotland who want an integrated system of transport. It appears to me, however, that the Government are being adamant. I hope they will accept the Amendment but for a later stage of the Bill we have put down an alternative Amendment asking that the Government shall not implement the Bill in Scotland until there has been an inquiry by independent people into the facts of what will be its result on Scotland's economy.
Is that an unreasonable request to make? The Minister has not inquired, and neither did his predecessor do so. According to all the people connected with transport in Scotland, nobody from the Government has inquired. The Government have not accepted the results of the inquiries of the Scottish Council for Industry. Surely, it is reasonable to ask that before endangering the economy of Scotland, the Government should have an independent inquiry by people interested in transport who are not infected with the Minister's ideologies. Let us have somebody who deals with the matter from a business point of view, and let the Minister have the inquiry before he implements the Bill in Scotland.
Scotland wants to know what the Government are planning. The commercial people and the industrial people want to know. The Highlands and the rural parts of Scotland want to know, and I now invite the Government, because my hon. Friends are exercising their


minds on the matter, to say what is to happen to Scotland in regard to transport.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has made a number of very emphatic declarations, which are not necessarily made true because he said them with very great vigour and thumped the Dispatch Box as he did so.
The right hon. Gentleman was singularly unhappy in his choice of illustrations, in that he happened to choose the very district which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) probably knows more than anybody in either House of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As the activities in Lanark Market are part of the business of my right hon. and gallant Friend, and it is a general Socialist charge that all Conservative Members of Parliament are more interested in their private business than anything else, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, at least, my right hon. and gallant Friend knows something about it.
It was a little unfortunate, therefore, that those illustrations were given. To put it mildly, it throws a slight shadow of doubt on the accuracy of some other observations on individual cases picked out at random of better service or worse service. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Amendment?"] I responded immediately to the right hon. Gentleman's request, and I am trying to deal very briefly, from the Government point of view, with the Amendment.
I was very interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by asking for an inquiry. I did not share the view of the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) that when we asked for an inquiry in 1946 we were living in a period when action was very desirable and inquiries could be very dangerous in their consequences. I did not share that view, but I was a little surprised when the right hon. Member for East Stirling asked for an inquiry because he said last week that an inquiry may be necessary elsewhere:
but in Scotland we do not need any inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1459.]

Mr. Woodburn: Mr. Woodburn rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give way; I think the same treatment must be observed on each side of the Committee.
The right hon. Member said that he was quoting from an interpretation of a Press conference at which it was said that Scotland was to have meted out to it specially sinister treatment. I was asked about Clause 16, which deals among other things, with passenger services and also the right of the Minister when the Bill—as I hope it will—becomes an Act, to be in a position to compel the Commission to divest themselves of their majority holding. In answer to a question in a Press conference as to whether in Scotland there was a monopoly of some road services I had that in mind—and I assure the right hon. Member that there was nothing sinister at all.
The right hon. Member asked for an undertaking that rates should not be increased in Scotland and elsewhere. That came immediately after one of his hon. Friends had drawn attention to an £8 million increase in wages and £5 million for fuel over the whole of the activities of the industry, which would throw the financial structure out of balance. How could anyone say, in those circumstances, that there would be no increase in rates? No one could be certain of that in the uncertain world in which we live but we have every intention to give the people of Scotland the services they need and deserve.
I now come to the more positive side of what I want to say. It is quite true that transport in Scotland is of vital concern, but it would be a mistake to assume that there are no other parts of the United Kingdom with vast distances to traverse and sparse populations where transport does not also have some of the features found in Scotland. If that is so, as we believe it is, how foolish it makes the doctrinaire approach of the Socialist Government in 1947 of applying to congested and sparsely populated areas the same rigid test of the 40-mile limit beyond which firms were taken over and the 25-mile limit beyond which they could not operate. If it is right in congested areas how wrong it is in sparsely populated areas, as indeed many Socialist hon. Members pointed out when they had a large majority in the House and that point was reached.
In Committee on the 1947 Bill the Minister of Transport said that the Labour Government had made their position perfectly plain and that it applied in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. Unionist policy in Scotland, we said, was to restore as wide a measure of freedom as possible for road transport. This was widely advertised and more anti-Socialist votes were given at the last Election than votes cast for the Socialist Party and the anti-Socialist votes increased by 400,000. We have a clear mandate for the action we are taking, a mandate as clear in Scotland as in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Nor need hon. Members pretend that they are breaking new ground in asking to exempt Scotland from the operation of this Bill. I think it was much more difficult upstairs, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) moved an Amendment in Committee to exempt a large part of Scotland from the operation of the Socialist nationalisation Bill and some of the points he made were supported by other hon. Members. But what was said by the right hon. Member for East Ham, South?
I do not see why any operator in one part of the country should have a different test applied, as to whether his property should be incorporated or not, from other citizens in other parts of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 13th March, 1947, c. 1924.]
This is a united Kingdom and it would be generally accepted that as far as possible it is right that the same broad policy should be applied in all parts of the United Kingdom as far as possible—perhaps "as far as practicable" as well. We are quite conscious, of course, that in Scotland there are particular problems and to those we must address ourselves.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling quoted the Scottish Council for Industry, but I know he would not suggest that people in Scotland are satisfied with the existing transport set up. I know from my own massive correspondence from Scottish hon. Members, from deputations from local authorities in Scotland, from the full dress debate of the whole day last July on the inadequacies of Scottish transport and the constant entreaties that I should take on the responsibilities of the Transport Commission to provide something which they

are not providing, that there is considerable dissatisfaction with what is going on.
The Scottish Council are much quoted and they are an excellent body. I give them and the House this assurance that I will, at later stages of the Bill, consult them as to how what I am about to say can best be put into practice. The Scottish Council have never suggested that common ownership is necessary to co-ordination. People who have said that have not followed the words used by the Scottish Council who have used the word "co-ordination" more than "integration." Indeed, I am not conscious that they ever used the word "integration" at all. They clearly understand that common ownership is not an essential pre-requisite for co-ordination if it is to be applied to MacBrayne's and air companies throughout Scotland.
I understand that all their constituent members have expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the present transport system in Scotland. I have the authority to quote it and am assured by the chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Scottish Council that he laments the passing of the old Scottish railway boards of the L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R. Hon. Members are always quoting the Scottish Council, but those boards were casually swept away. Should those boards be restored? I hope we can count on the support of hon. Members opposite for a restoration which would be fully in accord with the wishes of the Scottish Council that ironing out local difficulties should be done without any recourse to London at all.
On the tendencies in British transport today, attention has been drawn in the Second Reading and other debates to this and it applies equally to Scotland. The number of C licences in Scotland has jumped from 36,000 on the eve of nationalisation to 62,000 in 1952 and the number of heavy ones, over one ton, has increased from 29,000 to 41,000. So the broad tendencies are applied in all parts of the United Kingdom.
It is impossible to accept the Amendment—to exempt Scotland. Quite apart from the considerations I have given, I do not have the fixed number of vehicles operating in Scotland because they pass freely as one concern over the frontier—if one can call it so—between England and Scotland. The Bill as drafted goes a


long way towards meeting the position of the Scottish consumer and it is the consumer we ought to have primarily in mind, as I certainly hope we have.
We have introduced into the Bill new provisions in regard to the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, we take the passenger services under review for the first time and they can report to the Minister for the first time and the Minister can give directions on their report. These are very important provisions and I hope that Scottish opinion will recognise them as such.
I realise that many people in Scotland do not think that this goes far enough to get the co-ordination that is needed and, if so, it is valuable to have a consultative committee. It may be made even more valuable, but the trouble is that it comes into the picture rather late in the day when the first principles of policy are agreed and the public might be feeling the consequences of changes in policy. It is said that it strengthens the co-ordinating machinery and although we recognise the need for greater co-ordinating machinery we could not accept a Scottish co-ordinating authority with executive powers.
I do not think that the Scottish Council for industry themselves really believe that to be practicable, with executive powers which, incidentally, carry with them full financial autonomy, and I do not believe that many people in Scotland have altogether faced up to what the consequences might be.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: What have the Scottish Tories advocated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have copies of what we have all said, and my hon. Friends are less vulnerable in previous declarations than are many hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We think there is a need for further consultative machinery, and we propose—I will gladly discuss details with the Scottish Council and other interested bodies, and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—in order to facilitate the co-ordination of the various providers of private transport in Scotland, to set up a committee composed of representatives of all the bodies responsible to the British Transport Commission for the provision of goods and

passenger services, both by road and rail, of British European Airways and of Messrs. MacBrayne.
The chairman might well be—this is a matter for discussion—the chairman of the Transport-Users Consultative Committee for Scotland. This would minimise overlapping and keep both bodies in touch with each other. We hope that thereby the whole field of publicly-owned transport in Scotland will be kept under constant review and that in this way Scottish interests will be fully safeguarded.
In regard to private transport undertakings, there are hopeful signs that it may well be possible in Scotland and elsewhere to get leaders of this great industry who will be in a position to speak for the industry as a whole, and no one will be more pleased than I and my right hon. Friend will be if, in time, and through patience, it is possible to identify private transport as well with a body of this kind.
I hope that this will be accepted as an earnest of the Government's firm belief that Scottish transport problems are of immense importance and have certain aspects which single them out for special treatment. With confidence, I commend this proposal to my hon. Friends and to as many hon. Gentleman opposite as possible.

Mr. Steele: None of us is really much wiser than before the Minister started. He now offers Scotland some form of committee. The Bill talks about an "authority." The word "authority" has some meaning. I do not know what the Minister means when he says that the Government now have in mind some form of super-committee with functions which I cannot understand or appreciate.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is merely a matter of putting the hon. Gentleman right.

Mr. Ross: This is the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is very hasty. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is referring to the railway authority, which remains exactly as it is drawn up in the Bill.

Mr. Steele: The general expression of opinion in Scotland has been for an authority for co-ordination, and the Bill


indicates that there are provisions for authorities to co-ordinate with other authorities. What that all adds up to I do not know.
I listened very carefully to the Minister. He indicated he was coming to a practical, positive part of his speech, but he sat down and I do not know whether he ever came to it. He talked about offering an extension of the consultative committee machinery, and he said that the purpose was to help the consumer. Where does the consumer come in on this? I gather that the consultative committee will deal only with the nationalised services. The road haulage service will be sold. How will the consumers put forward their grievances in the case of an undertaking with one man and three lorries, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend?
It is a matter for the Government to say what ought to be done in Scotland, and we have put down the Amendment to give the Government that opportunity, but the Minister has run away from it. His hon. Friends, the Scottish Council for Industry, the Press in Scotland, including the "Scotsman" and the "Glasgow Herald" and others who have been writing leading articles about it, are all anxious to know what the Government's intentions are. They have been told nothing. In fact, all that the Minister has done has been, in reply to a point made by my right hon. Friend, to throw some doubt on the accuracy of the Scottish Press.
Of course we want an inquiry, but it is an inquiry to satisfy not us, but the Minister.

Mr. Woodburn: And the public.

Mr. Steele: And the public generally. I cannot understand the Minister's attitude. Let us go back to the Press conference which he had on 9th July, 1952. According to the "Edinburgh Evening News" he said that the break-up of the Scottish bus monopoly was not imminent and that the Government intended to carry it out only after a full investigation of the public interest in the matter.

Mr. Ross: The Minister was going to explain that, but he forgot.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be unfortunate if a misunderstanding occurred. I

was asked whether I intended to use at an early date the powers I am taking under Clause 16. I said "No." I do not think I could have been quoted as saying what has been suggested. I am perfectly conscious of never having said anything to that effect. I said that I had set up the Thesiger Committee and that we must wait to see what emerged from it.

Mr. Steele: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of misleading the Committee. What has happened is that my right hon. Friend has used a quotation from a responsible Edinburgh newspaper and I have used a quotation from the same newspaper, and the Minister denies them both. In the case of passenger buses—the Minister admits, according to my information, that there is a monopoly—where it is appreciated that we have a monopoly, the Minister is prepared to carry out a full investigation, but he is not so prepared in the case of long-distance road haulage where there is no monopoly. Nevertheless, we ought to have an inquiry before the Minister does anything about it.
Some questions were put by my right hon. Friend. We want to know what will happen to the units in Scotland which are not sold. If they are not sold in Scotland, will they be transferred south of the Border and sold in England? Can the Minister tell us what amount of road transport will remain with the Commission in Scotland? The Scottish Council for Industry—here there is nothing between us—visualised that the British Transport Commission would retain a certain proportion of the road haulage undertakings. The ex-Minister of Transport also said during the Second Reading of the Bill that the Transport Commission ought to retain a certain proportion of the long-distance road haulage.

Mr. John Maclay: I said that it would be retained under the specific Clause in the Bill and that I thought it was a good thing that it should be so.

Mr. Steele: The right hon. Gentleman said:
…what is happening under the Bill is that the Commission will retain a substantial proportion of road transport. It is there in the Bill, and I think that is very necessary for Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1651.]


I said that there was nothing between us. All I say is that both the Scottish Council for Industry and the right hon. Gentleman agreed that so much should be retained. We want to know how much. It is an important question. The Minister said, on 17th November:
…we propose that the Commission should be allowed to retain a body of vehicles broadly approximating to what the railways had before nationalisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1418.]
But that is quite unrealistic for Scotland. Long-distance road haulage in Scotland is a public service. I have taken the trouble to find out and I discover that there are more uneconomic units in long-distance road haulage in Scotland, than in any other part of the country.
We want to know what is to happen to those units, for instance, those at Inverness. They are able to give a service because the British Transport Commission has overall responsibility. If the Commission is unable to sell those units—and I cannot see the Commission being able to—what will happen? If the service is not available there will be a public outcry. The Minister must have due regard to the service given. Is the Commission to be left with these uneconomic units and are only the others to be sold?
We say the only way to give this public service in Scotland is to take Scotland out of the Bill altogether, and that is what we demand. We have had no answer to the questions which we have put to the Minister. We have received no satisfaction from the Minister, and I am quite certain that the Scottish Press and those people who have been making representations, both in private and in public, will be disgusted at the attitude of the Minister.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The first thing which hon. Members on this side of the Committee would like to do, I think, is to thank my right hon. Friend for the statement he has made. We have looked carefully into this matter and have examined the powers contained in the Bill, which is more than many sections of the Press appear to have done, and we do not agree with hon. Members opposite that the statement made by my right hon. Friend is not plain.
We consider that it is quite plain, so far as it goes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Obviously, in a short debate of this kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"]—it is not possible to give a full exposition of exactly what the form of transport is ultimately to be in Scotland. But there will be future occasions in the debates on this Bill to discuss the matter. For example, we have yet to come to Clause 14, and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) seems to have been confusing the special railway authority to be set up under that Clause with the co-ordinating committee—[HON MEMBERS: "No."]—to which my right hon. Friend was referring.
There are two broad questions arising on this Amendment. First, is it practicable to take Scotland out of the Bill, so far as road transport is concerned, and, second, even if it is practicable, would it be desirable for Scotland?
Before I deal with those two specific points, may I, once and for all, make clear the position of hon. Members on this side of the Committee? It is that this Amendment, so far as I know, is totally unacceptable to all my hon. Friends. May I add also what we on this side of the Committee said in 1949 in the document called, "Scottish Control of Scottish Affairs"? We said:
Unionist policy is to restore as wide a measure of freedom as possible to road transport.
We still stick to that, but there are other occasions on which we can talk about it.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) said that, so far as he knew, industrial interests were opposed to the de-nationalisation of road haulage in Scotland. The Scottish Chamber of Commerce, which represents trade interests, manufacturing interests and agricultural interests, was reported in the "Dundee Courier and Advertiser"—

Mr. Ross: But now we cannot believe the Scottish Press.

Mr. Macpherson: —as having said:
The Committee"—
of the Chamber—
reaffirm their support for the de-nationalisation of the road services with as little disturbance as possible to the industrial consumer.
That is exactly what this Bill provides for.
The Joint Secretary of the Central Committee of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce has stated:
For road haulage there should be as much private enterprise as possible not subject to centralised direction or control other than what is involved in the licensing system.
And in case there should be any doubt as to whether industry in Scotland and the Chamber of Commerce are satisfied with the service they are getting at present, he goes on:
I think it is fair to say that Scottish industry holds the view that whatever organisation is set up here it should provide for an element of reasonable competition. There is dissatisfaction with the transport set-up today and chambers of commerce report that they are continually receiving complaints of delays, wrong deliveries, incorrect charges and the like.
That is also echoed by the Chairman
of the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, and this is important because it deals with the remote areas in the north. He says that from his very intimate experience, not from inquiries he has made, but from his intimate experience of road transport in the northern areas, that he has
always found that the individual attention given by private ownership was very much more efficient than could possibly be achieved by a nationalised body.
I think that disposes once and for all of this argument.
My right hon. Friend has dealt with the question of the practicability of this proposal. I put this to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Supposing it were possible to detach road haulage in Scotland, how would it be possible to keep it so? Would right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite agree that transport should come from south of the Border—transport which may well have been bought from the Commission—to compete with what remains under the control of the Commission in Scotland? Do they agree to that?

Mr. Ross: Why not?

Mr. Macpherson: Secondly, there would be no obligation on the Commission to keep their vehicles at present in Scotland north of the Border. It has been suggested that it is a great mistake to break up the organisation at present existing, and that it serves a useful purpose. But the groups vary very considerably in their efficiency. We maintain that while some groups could

very well be broken up, there is nothing in the Bill which requires all the groups to be broken up. But we do maintain that it is much better to have individual interests in control of individual units.

Mr. Manuel: In the Highlands?

Mr. Macpherson: That is a point I particularly wanted to make. The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) talks about the Highlands. If he will go to the Highlands—and he knows that I come from there—he will find that the services at present given are in no wise better, and in many cases far worse, than the services given before. I am referring to road haulage services. One test is, can we get goods carried when we want them carried, instead of having to wait for a regular service which might operate only one day a week? That is the test. Another test is that of efficiency and cost.
It would be most unfair to Scotland if we accepted this Amendment. We should be leaving Scotland outside the benefits of this Bill. We in Scotland have a right to as cheap and efficient a service as the rest of the country and if we accepted this Amendment we should be denying Scotland that right.

Mr. John Wheatley: I did not fully understand the contribution of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) but, as obviously the hon. Gentleman did not understand it himself, he will not expect a reply from me. I rise to pose again some of the questions which the Minister has shirked. If ever there was a striking condemnation of the Government's policy of introducing the Guillotine, it is demonstrated by the short time at my disposal in this truncated debate.
All the important matters affecting Scotland have not been capable of proper exploitation from either side. The complete indifference with which the Minister dealt with the points which were so succinctly raised by my hon. Friends shows his attitude to the whole question. I hope to put some of those questions again and I hope that we shall get some answer in the interests of Scotland from the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
The first question is this. In changing over from the existing system to the new system which is proposed, the onus is fairly and squarely on the shoulders of


the Government. Do they accept the onus and will they produce evidence to satisfy this Committee that they are justified in making a change? That onus is not discharged by wild and vague assertions such as those made by the Minister without one fact being advanced in substantiation of them. All he did was to denigrate the organisation for which he is responsible in the House of Commons.
Do the Government accept the conditions for an efficient service in Scotland as laid down by the Scottish Council for Industry. Do they accept those conditions? If not,
why not? If they accept them, can they ride out by the simple expression of opinion that co-ordination does not necessarily require common ownership? Can they get the proper co-ordination and integration necessary for proper transport services in Scotland without common ownership? Will the Government try to explain how that could be operated?
All we are told—and the Minister disclosed it as if some great new light were given to Scotland—is that we are to get a new Committee. This Committee will represent only the public bodies which will be operating transport. The private enterprise operators will not be represented. How can we get any co-ordination or effective integration of services if that large mass of operators will be outside the bounds of that Committee? Can we have an answer to that question? The Government repudiate the suggestion that we should set up a Committee to conduct an inquiry, but they intend to set up this Committee. Would not it be much better to set up a much more representative Committee to hold an inquiry in the interests of Scotland, before the new Committee is set up?
There are one or two other questions I wish to ask. I am specially interested in what is to happen in the outlying parts of Scotland. What provisions will be made to ensure the service which has been built up in these outlying parts, especially in the Highlands and Islands? What will happen to the depots at Inverness, Dumfries and Inverary? Are any steps to be taken to ensure that a sufficient number of operable units will be available in these areas? Will any precautions be taken to ensure that if vehicles are bought for these units they are not

immediately transferred to the industrial centres, where their operations may be more profitable, at the expense of the people in the outlying areas?
If the British Transport Commission have to continue to operate in the outlying areas because it will be uneconomic, will they receive a subsidy such as Mac-Brayne's receive—a subsidy of £360,000 a year—in order to carry out an integrated system of transport? If that is good enough for private enterprise, surely it is good enough for a public body.
I want to leave plenty of time for the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Judging by the nature of the replies we have already received, five minutes will be sufficient. If the Government carry out this policy, it is not merely road haulage which they are selling out in Scotland: they are selling out Scotland itself.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): In the five minutes left to me, I will do my best to answer the questions—[Interruption.]

Mr. William Hamilton: Why cannot the Secretary of State reply?

Mr. Stewart: One minute has gone already. In the four minutes left to me, I will try to answer the questions. I begin with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley). First, I would point out that this is not the only occassion when Scottish problems will be discussed during the Committee stage of this Bill. There are several other opportunities. [Interruption.] This is not an arguable point: there are several other occasions. Therefore, do not let us say for a moment—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I should like to point out that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair and not to individual hon. Members.

Mr. Stewart: It is not true to say that this is the only opportunity we shall get. There will be many others. The first question was whether we accepted the onus of the change. Of course, we accept the onus of the change. That is what this Government are always glad to do—to take responsibility for their


own actions. We will show in due course that we are right in the action we are taking.
Secondly, I was asked whether we accept the conditions of the Scottish Council. What is the first condition? I will read to the Committee a few words—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a question. If he does not now want a reply, I will gladly sit down. He asked whether we accepted the conditions. I want to read the first condition which has not been mentioned. I quote from a letter sent to the Ministry of Transport by Mr. Maclean only a few days ago.

Mr. Woodburn: Read the document.

Mr. Stewart: This is their document.

Mr. Hamilton: It is a Press statement.

Mr. Stewart: This is their document. They say:
At the outset I should like to make it abundantly clear that the Scottish Council do not seek complete autonomy for Scottish transport under a Scottish authority. We are not in favour of the transport being broken at the border and coming under separate and equal authorities….

Mr. Hector McNeil: Read the next sentence.

Mr. Stewart: I should read a great deal more if I had time. The first condition is, therefore, the opposite of the condition which the Opposition ask us to accept.

Mr. McNeil: No, it is not. Be honest.

Mr. Stewart: They said that we should leave Scotland alone—leave Scotland out

of the Bill. That is the exact opposite of what the Scottish Council asked us to do.

The next question asked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was about the outlying areas. Why should it be assumed that the skilled executives who are at the disposal of the Government in road transport matters now are likely to act like lunatics in the dispersal of the Commission's road transport units? That is a ridiculous suggestion.

In the minute that is left to me I give this assurance. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to take every possible step to ensure, in the change which is coming about, that the needs of the outlying parts, and the needs of all parts, of Scotland are carefully guarded.

Mr. Callaghan: That is a most inadequate reply from the Minister. Those of us who have heard the debate know perfectly well that it will satisfy no one in Scotland. The Minister was unable to give any guarantees. The people who will be operating these services will be operating them for private profit. If they cannot make a profit they will not serve the areas. In that case, the people living in the isolated areas will be left without any service whatever. Anyone who has listened to the debate—

It being Eight o'Clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 293.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Blenkinsop, A.
Clunie, J.


Adams, Richard
Blyton, W. R.
Coldrick, W.


Albu, A. H.
Boardman, H.
Collick, P. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, H. W.
Cove, W. G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bowles, F. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Crosland, C. A. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Brockway, A. F.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Baird, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Daines, P.


Balfour, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Burke, W. A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)


Bence, C. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Benn, Wedgwood
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Benson, G.
Carmichael, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Beswick, F.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Champion, A. J.
Deer, G.


Bing, G. H. C.
Chapman, W. D.
Delargy, H. J.


Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dodds, N. N.




Donnelly, D. L.
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kinley, J.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edelman, M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt Hon. Sir Hartley


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur
Short, E. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Ewart, R.
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, J.


Field, W. J.
McInnes, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fienburgh, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Follick, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, M. M.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Glanville, James
Mayhew, C. P.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Messer, F.
Swingler, S. T.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Sylvester, G. O.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morley, R.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mort, D. L.
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardy, E. A.
Mulley, F. W.
Timmons, J.


Hargreaves, A.
Nally, W.
Tommey, F.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Neal, Harold (Belsover)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hastings, S.
O'Brien, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hayman, F. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Usborne, H. C.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Oliver, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Orbach, M.
Wallace, H. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oswald, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.
Weitzman, D.


Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
West, D. G.


Hubbard, T. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pannell, Charles
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paton, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire. N. E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.
Wigg, George


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Porter, G.
Willey, F. T.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, Ranald (Wigan)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rhodes, H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. F.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Keenan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Kenyon, C.
Rogers George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Bennett, William (Woodside)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Banks, Col. C.
Birch, Nigel


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Barlow, Sir John
Black, C. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Baxter, A. B.
Bossom, A. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Braine, B. R.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)







Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Odey, G. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullard, D. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weaton-super-Mare)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holt, A. F.
Osborne, C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Partridge, E.


Butcher, H. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Campbell, Sir David
Horobin, I. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.


Carson, Hon. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Channon, H.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hurd, A. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Colegate, W. A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Profumo, J. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Raikes, H. V.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton, D. L. M.


Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crouch, R. F.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robertson, Sir David


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kaberry, D.
Robson-Brown, W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Leather, E. H. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Donner, P. W.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Scholfield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Drewe, G.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Duthie, W. S.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Snadden, W. McN.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fall, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, R. M.


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Spenoe, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCullum, Major D.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fort, R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Stevens, G. P.


Foster, John
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McKibbin, A. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gammans, L. D.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Summers, G. S.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Godber, J. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Teeling, W.


Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grimond, J.
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maudling, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Tilney, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John
Turner, H. F. L.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Turton, R. H.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vosper, D. F.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicholts, Harmar
Wade, D. W.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hay, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Heath, Edward
Nugent, G. R. H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)







Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wood, Hon. R.


Watkinson, H. A.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)



Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Baker (Canterbury)
Wills, G.
Mr. Studholme and


Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Redmayne.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on Clause 1.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 267.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Drewe, G.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Arbuthnot, John
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Duthie, W. S.
Kaberry, D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Baker, P. A. D.
Erroll, F. J.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr, J. M.
Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount.


Baldwin, A. E.
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Banks, Col. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Barber, Anthony
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Leather, E. H. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Baxter, A. B.
Fort, R.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Foster, John
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Martin


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Linstead, H. N.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Birch, Nigel
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bishop, F. P.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert


Black, C. W.
Godber, J. B.
Low, A. R. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braine, B. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McAdden, S. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McCallum, Major D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Grimond, J.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKibbin, A. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harden, J. R. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bullard, D. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maclean, Fitzroy




Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Campbell, Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hay, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Carson, Hon. E.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marples, A. E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Channon, H.
Heath, Edward
Maude, Angus


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maudling, R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John


Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, A. H. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cranborne, Viscount
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Holt, A. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nicholls, Harmar


Crouch, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horobin, I. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgshire)
Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
O'Neill Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Donner, P. W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)




Orr-Ewing Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Osborne, C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Partridge, E.
Scott, R. Donald
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Perkins W. R. D.
Shepherd, William
Tilney, John


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Payton, J. W. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Turner, H. F. L.


Pickthorn, Capt. R. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Turton, R. H.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pitman, I. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Vane, W. M. F.


Powell, J. Enoch
Snadden, W. McN.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Soames, Capt. C.
Vosper, D. F.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wade, D. W.


Profumo, J. D.
Speir, R. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Raikes, H. V.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Redmayne, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stevens, G. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Renton, D. L. M.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Robertson, Sir David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Storey, S.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Robson-Brown, W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Roper, Sir Harold
Summers, G. S.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Teeling, W.



Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Willis.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)


Adams, Richard
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Herbison, Miss M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, P.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Houghton, Douglas


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Deer, G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Baird, J.
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Balfour, A.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bence, C. R.
Edelman, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Benn, Wedgwood
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Benson, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Beswick, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Janner, B.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Blackburn, F.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Blyton, W. R.
Field, W. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Boardman, H.
Fienburgh, W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bowden, H. W.
Follick, M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bowles, F. G.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Forman, J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Brockway, A. F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Keenan, W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Kenyon, C.




Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
King, Dr. H. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gibson, C. W.
Kinley, J.


Burke, W. A.
Glanville, James
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Callaghan, L. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lewis, Arthur


Carmichael, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lindgren, G. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, J. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McGhee, H. G.


Clunie, J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McInnes, J.


Coldrick, W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Collick, P. H.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, W. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Cove, W. G.
Hannan, W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hardy, E. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hastings, S.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Dalnes, P.
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, A. C.







Mayhew, C. P.
Reeves, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Messer, F.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Timmons, J.


Mikardo, Ian
Rhodes, H.
Tomney, F.


Mitchison, G. R.
Richards, R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Monslow, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Usborne, H. C.


Morley, R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wallace, H. W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mort, D. L.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Weitzman, D.


Moyle, A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mulley, F. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wells, William (Walsall)


Nally, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
West, D. G.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Short, E. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


O'Brien, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Oldfield, W. H.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Orbach, M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wigg, George


Oswald, T.
Slater, J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Padley, W. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Paget, R. T.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, F. T.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pannell, Charles
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Parker, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Paton, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Pearson, A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Peart, T. F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Popplewell, E.
Swingler, S. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Porter, G.
Sylvester, G. O.
Yates, V. F.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)



Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.


Rankin, John
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Clause 2.—(ROAD HAULAGE DISPOSAL BOARD.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I propose to call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in page 3, line 10, to leave out "six," and to insert "eight." It might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in line 10, to leave out "six," and to insert "seven" could be discussed together.

Mr. Callaghan: I take it from that, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you are ruling out of order the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) in page 3, line 6, to leave out subsections (1) to (9) and to insert a new subsection (1).

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes. That Amendment, together with the Amendment in page 4, line 19, to leave out subsections (10) to (13) and to insert a new subsection (2), taken together, would negative the whole Clause.

Mr. Callaghan: It is not, of course, my purpose to challenge that in any way. I

raise the matter just for the purpose of clarification. Clearly discussion on inserting "seven" instead of "six" or "eight" instead of "six" is a very narrow discussion indeed, and our purpose in putting down these Amendments which you are ruling out of order was to obtain a wide discussion on the whole field of the Road Haulage Disposal Board. Could you indicate what would be within the rules of order in that discussion?

The Deputy-Chairman: The only point at which that subject could be discussed now is on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It would not be in order on any Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "six," and to insert "eight."
I trust that we shall have the co-operation of the Committee in trying to obtain a general discussion at an appropriate time on the subject of the Road Haulage Disposal Board.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I beg the hon. Member's pardon for intervening, but I thought that he was sitting down and I wanted to speak on his point of order.

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. and learned Member wishes to interrupt me on a point of order, I have to tell him that I am now making my speech but I should be quite ready to give way.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: That is exactly what I would expect of the hon. Member—to be so obliging. The line of his argument is capable of a little further development because we are getting into mathematics on these Amendments, into differences between six and seven, and six and eight, and the difference in line 15 between "one member," and "two members," and the difference in line 17 between "one member," and "three members." I need not go into the difference on another Amendment to line 18 between "industry," and "and finance."

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has not yet moved his Amendment. He is now in the process of moving it and that Amendment to leave out "six," and insert "eight" is the only one before us.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether I am interpreting the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) aright, but I was hoping that we could have a general discussion on these variations, which are all very narrow, and that they could be put together at some convenient time before the Guillotine falls.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I and my hon. Friends would be in entire agreement with that suggestion.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: If that meets with the convenience of the Committee, there is no objection.

Mr. Callaghan: That would then take us to the Amendment in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(c) one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of manufacturers of motor vehicles as the Minister thinks fit.
and also in line 20 to leave out from "appointed," to the end of line 25, and to insert:
from among persons nominated by the Central Transport Consultative Committee.

Mr. N. Macpherson: On a point of order. Would it not be possible to

include the two Amendments in page 3, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(e) one member shall be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
and also, in the same line, at the end, to insert:
(e) one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade unions as the Minister thinks fit.

The Deputy-Chairman: If that meets the convenience of the Committee, we will include all the Amendments on page 72 of the Paper and the two at the top of page 73.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case I will speak very briefly in moving my Amendment so that every hon. Member who has his name down to an Amendment on the Order Paper can have an opportunity of speaking. If I am not out of order, perhaps I may be allowed to say that our major purpose is to get rid of the Disposal Board and that subject no doubt will come along later. Assuming that we do not attain that objective, and awaiting the strictures of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who no doubt will tell us that this is obviously a split in Labour Party policy, we still think that it is our duty to try to improve the Clause. That is a strange idea to the noble Lord, but it fits in with our idea of discussing a Bill and we shall persist in this as the debate goes on.
If there must be a Road Haulage Disposal Board, our purpose here is to give greater weight to the British Transport Commission and also to the Central Transport Consultative Committee. We feel that the Road Haulage Disposal Board, whose object will be to determine the policy in the disposal of these vehicles and whose executive agency the Commission will be, is really weighted far too heavily on the side of those who stand to benefit from the transaction.
We think that it is against the public interest that those who may well stand to benefit, or whose friends may stand to benefit, from transactions of this sort should be in the majority on a Board of this kind, and we would have thought that the Government themselves would have taken that view. We are discussing now a situation in which the Disposal Board will determine policy and, in the


event of disputes with the Commission, it will have very considerable powers. This Board will be having regard to the disposal of public property the total value of which has been variously given as between £70 million and £100 million.
If I may draw an analogy, it is that when under the 1947 Act there were likely to be disputes between the State or between the British Transport Commission, on the one hand, and the man whose business was being acquired, on the other, the machinery set up under that Act, called the Transport Arbitration Tribunal, was made up of the nominee of the Lord Chancellor, the nominee of his opposite number in Scotland, the Lord President, and a third gentleman of legal experience. They were all lawyers and they had the job of adjudicating between the British Transport Commission and individuals whose businesses were being acquired. That seemed to us right and proper and a fair way of assuring that the balance was right.
But now, when we come to the disposal of the self-same property, instead of the scale being held equal by persons of legal experience and of a judicial, independent mind, we find that this Board is to be packed with representatives of trade and industry, the persons holding A, B and C licences. These people and their friends stand to gain from the very operations to which the Board are being asked to have regard.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member says that the Board is to be packed with representatives of trade and industry, but he himself has an Amendment on the Order Paper to increase the number of trade unionists from one to three.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: That is quite true, and I was coming to that point. I will deal with it straight away, because I fully realise that the noble Lord is anxious to help.
The purpose of that Amendment is to ensure that trade and industry, as distinct from persons holding A, B or C licences, should have an additional voice. We believe that any Board of this sort, if it is to be directed along those lines, should have its composition made up in that way, so that it can be quite clear that

there can be no suggestion that it is being packed by friends of those who are going to benefit from these transactions. For that reason, we are altogether opposed to the whole Board.
We believe that the Commission should have the job of disposing of this national property, and we believe that it should be entrusted with that responsibility if it is given to it. That is far better than having an abortion like this thrust in, the sole purpose of which will be to get job lots for the boys at the cheapest rates. Our object in proposing to increase the size of the Board from six to eight is to weaken the stronghold that the A, B and C licence holders are going to have one this Disposal Board, and to strengthen the independent people who will have no interest to serve except that of the public interest.
That may not be an argument that will appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Although I am presenting it to them at the moment, I am really presenting it more widely to the public at large, because they will understand what is going on in this business, and they will know that the intention is to have a majority on the Disposal Board made up of people who stand to benefit and that they cannot expect that even justice is going to seem to be done between the nation, which owns these assets at the present time, and those who are going to benefit from them when they are sold.
It is for that reason that I am moving this Amendment, and it is for that reason that we believe that the independent element on this Board should be strengthened considerably, so that even though the public is going to find it has lost a very valuable property, and even though the assets are going to be torn away from it, nevertheless we shall have some independent-minded members on this Board who can put up a fight in order to preserve the decencies of public life.

Mr. Carr: Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), my hon. Friends and I, who have on the Paper two of the Amendments being discussed now, certainly do not wish to get rid of the Board. We are not just trying to improve what we think is a bad job; we are, by these Amendments, trying to strengthen what we think is a good Board.
Before I proceed on those lines, there is one point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East with which I should like to deal. He made what seemed to me to be the quite astonishing statement that the Board as it stands in the Bill at the moment is packed with a majority of those who will benefit under the Bill. If one looks at the composition of the Board, one sees that, apart from the chairman and deputy-chairman, there are four other members. One represents C licence holders, one represents A and B licence holders, one represents the Commission and one represents trade and industry.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Does the hon. Member appreciate that the chairman and the deputy-chairman are to be appointed by the Minister? We can all guess the relations between the Minister and the A, B and C licence holders.

Mr. Carr: Personally, I have a very much higher opinion of the sense of responsibility of my right hon. Friend than the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have.
When we look at the composition of this Board as it stands, I presume that the hon. Gentleman had in mind that the representatives of the A and B licensees and the C licensees were among those who were going to benefit, and that he had in mind that the representative of the Commission was one who was not going to benefit. We can only get a majority on the Board of those who are likely to benefit under this Bill if we include amongst them representatives of trade and industry. It is our contention that the whole purpose of this Bill is to provide a better service for the trade and industry of the country.
If that is the sense in which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East means that there is to be a majority of people who will benefit, I will agree with him, but if he means benefit in the sense I took him to mean it, I am sure that he is talking complete nonsense. There can be a majority of those who benefit only if we believe that we are to have a more efficient service, which in our opinion is the whole purpose of this Bill.
I turn to the two Amendments among those we are discussing which are in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends: in page 3, line 10, leave out

"six," and insert "seven" and in page 3, line 25, at end, insert:
(e) one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade unions as the Minister thinks fit.
We support half of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member to the extent that we think the Board should be increased above its present number of six, but we are opposed to the second part of the Amendment, which would increase it to eight. We oppose increasing it to as large a number as eight because we believe that in the case of a Board of this kind it is essential, if it is to work effectively, that it should be kept at a small number as possible.
Moreover, it should also, for convenience of working, have an odd number—for the proper working of majority decisions and reasons of that kind. I repeat that it should be kept as small as is consistent with having on it representatives of all the main parties who are affected by and interested in the operation of the Bill. The four parties mentioned in the Clause are all obviously closely interested in the operation of the Bill, but we believe that there is also one other party which is greatly interested in the Bill which is at the moment not represented.
We believe that there should also be a representative of the trade unions on the Board—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that is the purpose of the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. [Interruption.] I am surprised at the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and others saying "No." I should have thought that on this point we could and should have the support of hon. Members opposite, who are always making such a fuss, if I may say so such a synthetic fuss, about the Government's supposed disregard of the interests of those who work in the industry.

Mr. Lindgren: Up to the present time the trade union movement has been clean. It does not want to be involved in any racket.

Mr. Carr: Such an intervention is beneath contempt and does not merit an answer. That is their affair, but in our experience, and I think the general experience in the country, is that even if at one moment the trade union movement is opposed to any Bill going through Parliament we always find that, the Bill


having been passed by democratic procedure, the trade unions have honourably recognised the democratic processes of this country and have never refused to participate in its working. I shall be surprised if on this occasion the trade unions do not follow the same example.
In any case we put forward this suggestion in good faith because we believe that this important issue of the method, timing and mechanism of the disposal of these transport units is a matter which vitally affects the interests of those who work in the industry. We believe, therefore, that a spokesman for the workers in the industry should be a member of this Board, that the workers should be represented on it. I know the sympathy of my right hon. Friend for the interests of the workers in this and other industries, and I hope that he will look favourably at this suggestion.
We believe that this need for trade union representation would be true in any case for a Board such as this. We believe it to be particularly important in this case because of the necessity to give to the Board wide powers and not to lay down detailed regulations and restrictions in the Bill to say how the Board should operate. We believe that if, for the Board to operate effectively, it must have wide powers, it is all the more necessary that it should be fully representative.
We on this side of the Committee reject the principle of nationalisation not only as an instrument of economic policy but also as an instrument of social policy. We believe that the right social conditions, responsibilities and status for the workers in industry will best be brought about under a system whereby the ownership of industry is left in private hands with the trade unions and private industry working by collective bargaining and negotiations, and with the Government standing outside independent of these other two interests.
We do not want to see a balance struck between these three interests by warfare but by partnership between them. That is the purpose of our policy. We believe in partnership and in the largest possible measure of joint consultation in all these matters. This Amendment which we
are proposing on this Clause is one small example of that partnership and joint consultation which we wish to get. It is for that reason that I ask my right hon. Friend to look favourably upon it.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: As one who has a knowledge of trade unions, I am not impressed by the platitudes of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) about trade unions in general. We know, too, what this talk about the theory of collective bargaining and opposing the principle of nationalisation means. We have experienced that already. As one associated with this industry since 1929 when I first started work and saw it at its worst, I am opposed to de-nationalisation because, apart from politics altogether, I dread the return to those times which we experienced in this industry and which will inevitably come again should this Bill become law.
On the question of trade union membership of the Disposal Board, let me say quite clearly and without any question, that we shall not be associated in any way with it, and I will tell the hon. Member for Mitcham why. First of all, the trade unions hate the Bill and everything that it represents. It is putting the clock back. The Minister knows what the trade unions think about him and his rotten Bill, because they have told him so.
If there were one trade union representative on this Board, let us look at the company in which he would be in. The Board will be composed of a chairman appointed by the Minister and a deputy-chairman also appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. That is two against the trade union representative straight away. Then there is to be one person nominated by the Commission. The trade union representative might have a friend there. I hope he would. Then there is to be one member appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade and industry as the Minister thinks fit.

Mr. Percy Morris: The F.B.I.

Mr. Mellish: Yes, the F.B.I. That would be three against the trade union representative. We come now to the last two. One member is to be appointed representative of persons holding A or B licences and one representative of those holding C licences. Imagine a trade union representative on a board of that nature. What chance would he have? It would not be very long before he resigned altogether.
In view of the reaction of the trade unions to the Bill in general, I think it


is impudent to ask them to go on to the Board. We are asking for further representatives from the Commission but the object of that is to try to save something from the wreckage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) said. It is a rotten Bill and we should like to see it disposed of entirely, but if we have to have it let us have another member or two on it to give it some balance.
Certainly, from the trade union angle, neither the men nor the union want anything to do with it, and when the T.U.C. receives an invitation from the Conservative Party to be associated with this Board, it will be found that they will have nothing to do with it.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am grateful to the mover of this Amendment because he enables me to speak also on the two Amendments which have been tabled from this side of the Committee. Both the mover of the Amendment and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) have an entirely wrong slant on the composition of the Board. As it stands, the Board is evenly balanced between the consumer interest and the other interests concerned.
The important thing is that the majority does not matter on this Board, because a difference of opinion has to be referred to the Minister. This is a planning body. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does it plan?"] Its purpose is to lay down the general lines on which the Commission is to act—

Mr. Callaghan: I only want to make a short point on subsection (8). Let us assume that a trade union member has a difference of opinion with the rest of the Board. It is then referred to the Minister only if the chairman, or the deputy-chairman in his absence, considers that the point is of sufficient importance to be referred to the Minister. In other words, such a trade union representative would be wholly in the hands of the chairman, who would or would not refer the issue in dispute to the Minister, who would then issue such directions as he liked. What an intolerable position in which to put a self-respecting trade unionist.

Mr. Macpherson: But hon. Gentlemen opposite have been talking as though the interest of the trade unionist would differ

from all the others. If, indeed, that were so, the present proposal would put the trade unionist in a situation in which the chairman could back his opinion alone and have the matter referred to the Minister.

Mr. Mitchison: Has it escaped the attention of the hon. Member that the chairman, nominated by the Minister without any qualifications, can differ from the rest of this precious Board and then refer the matter to the Minister and get it decided by him?

Mr. Macpherson: Not under the Amendment that we are discussing, but under one which comes later; but I thought it ought to be mentioned at this moment, because it is germane to the point raised by the mover of the Amendment. Surely it must be wrong to say, simply because there is disagreement in some sections of the community in regard to the Bill, that that section should not do its bit to co-operate in making the best of the Act.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) himself said that the conception of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the Committee was that they want, in Committee, to make the Bill as good as possible. Surely the same should apply to any section of the community, once the Bill is law. We have seen many examples of that in the past. Not everybody agreed in detail with the National Health Service Act, but the co-operation from all sections of the community has been good, which is for the benefit of the community. I should hope that the same would apply in the present case. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment which has been moved so delightfully and cogently by my hon. Friend.
I now turn to the Amendment at the top of page 73 of the Order Paper, namely, in page 3, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(e) one member shall be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
As my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago, it is generally admitted that there are some special problems in Scotland, although they are not so different as to make it necessary or desirable, or indeed practicable, that Scotland can be treated entirely separately in this Bill.


The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Disposal Board shall have these problems constantly before them when they are called upon to examine the proposals of the Commission, and also when they are considering the general lines on which the Commission is to work.
I would agree that this proposal is not the only way of securing that purpose and it may be that it is not even the best way. Here we have a Board appointed as being broadly representative of particular sections of those who are interested in transport, whereas a Scottish representative would have to cover all those interests in his person and that might cut across the general character of the Board which is representative of various interests—the consumer on the one hand and, on the other, the Commission and other suppliers of services. However, it would mean that the Scottish representative would be able to discuss the Commission's disposal plan for road haulage property in Scotland with other interests in Scotland and it might save the Disposal Board a considerable amount of trouble.
One argument which I hope my right hon. Friend will not use in reply to this Amendment is that the Commission must already know the conditions and the special problems in Scotland and that, therefore, the division of the Road Haulage Executive property there into units can safely be left to them.

Mr. William Keenan: The Scots should have a cut out of it as well.

Mr. Macpherson: I hope my right hon. Friend will not argue that the Commission should be the sole arbiter of the size, conditions, and so forth, of the units that are to be disposed of.
There is another argument he may put forward, namely, that it would be virtually impossible to get eight distinguished persons without having a Scotsman among them and that, therefore, it is likely that there will be a Scotsman on the Board in any case. He might even undertake to ensure that this should be so. That would be something. But it would depend very much on which member it was. A Scottish member to represent trade and industry would be

one thing, but it would not be acceptable if the one Scotsman was the member who represented the Commission. It would mean that there would be one interest alone represented from the suppliers of transport. I do not think we on this side would be satisfied if the sole Scotsman represented the A and B or the C licence holders either.
If the Minister cannot concede this Amendment, I hope he will consider carefully what machinery is needed to enable the Disposal Board to appreciate the Scottish problem before they agree to the plans of the Commission for the disposal of the Road Haulage Executive property in Scotland. We, on our side, do not wish to multiply advisory committees and we hesitate to suggest that an ad hoc committee should be set up in Scotland to advise the Disposal Board on the disposal of property in Scotland.
We suggest, however, that the Minister should consider carefully between now and the next stage whether he can concede this Amendment, as I hope he will be able to do. If not, we would like to know what alternative proposals he can put forward to ensure that the special conditions in Scotland will be before the Board and that the Board will be fully acquainted with them.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the Committee will allow me, I should like to deal with the single point that has been raised by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Lindgren: On a point of order. Is this a repetition of what happened last night? Is the Closure to be moved?

Mr. Stewart: I should like to deal with the single point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), with reference to the representation of Scotland on this body. My right hon. Friend, of course, intends to reply to the whole general debate. It is a pity that no Scottish Labour Members are now present, except—

Mr. Ross: Withdraw.

Mr. Stewart: I did say "except." Perhaps the Committee will, nevertheless, listen for a moment to this Scottish problem.
The Government recognise the peculiar geographical and social conditions that appertain in Scotland. For that reason, my right hon. Friend would like very


much in some manner to meet the wishes of my hon. Friends from Scotland. The representatives of the Commission will, of course, be in Scotland—in the Highlands, the Lowlands and elsewhere—and will guide the Disposal Board.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Surely this put-up business is against all the rules of order and all the traditions of the House. An hon. Member gets up—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member talks about a "put-up business." I do not know to what he is referring.

Mr. Mitchison: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, you did not give me a chance to indicate what I was referring to. I shall now do so. An hon. Member opposite from a Scottish constituency gets up and moves an Amendment. No hon. Member—there is a Scottish Member here—is called from this side of the Committee, and then the Joint Under-Secretary gets up and says, "Ah, yes. In reply to the notable, gallant suggestions made by my hon. Friend, I will, of course, do something for Scotland." Is that right, Mr. Hopkin Morris?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am in no position to judge that. That is quite outside my jurisdiction.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is it not normal for speakers to be called from alternative sides, Mr. Hopkin Morris?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that that is normal, but I have called the Minister. The Minister got up, and it is the practice to call him. I can call on anybody else who gets up to speak later.

Mr. Callaghan: We certainly agree, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that if the Minister rose, you would call him. I do not know that this is a matter really for you, but we understood from an earlier discussion this afternoon that the Minister would reserve himself until the end of the discussion—he told us that—so that there should not be more than one speech made by him. If we are to have two Ministers intervening in this way when we are working under a very heavy handicap, it is impossible to discuss the matter in a proper manner. Is it not

preferable that the Government, instead of putting up their stooges to move Amendments of this sort—

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to hon. Members that this is not a matter for me. The Minister got up and I have called him, as is the ordinary practice.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Further to that, would it not be a simple solution if the Under-Secretary gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to hear what my hon. Friend has to say before he replies?

Mr. Powell: Is it in order for one hon. Member to say that another is a "stooge"?

Mr. Macpherson: Is it in order for an hon. Member not only to suggest that another hon. Member is a stooge, but that the Government have asked him to put down the Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the word "stooge" has been declared to be un-Parliamentary.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have given a Ruling upon that, and there can be no point of order arising out of the Ruling.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Amendment was one of the first to appear on the Order Paper. It stands in the names of seven of my hon. Friends from Scotland. It represents, I am sure, a very broad section of Scottish opinion. I intervened at this stage, seeking the permission of the Committee, with only one aim in view, and that was to save time. Had the Committee allowed me to go on, we should have finished five minutes ago, Hon. Members opposite must take the responsibility for wasting precious time. If they will give me three minutes, I will say all that I intend to say.
There are difficulties facing my right hon. Friend—as, indeed, my hon. Friend recognised—in accepting at once the precise terms of the Amendment. First, there is the question of the size of this body and, secondly, there is the constituent membership of this body. It is not easy, as my hon. Friend recognised,


to say exactly where a Scottish Member might be appointed. But I have the authority of my right hon. Friend—and this is all I wish to say to the Committee—to say to my hon. Friends behind me that the Minister has sympathy for this Amendment and will undertake to give it the most careful consideration between now and the next stage of the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I hesitate to butt in in squabbles between Scottish and Sassenach hon. Members. I hope that on some Amendments to be discussed later the Minister will be as forthcoming as he has been on this Amendment relating to Scotland. I am bound to say, representing an area which consists of one-tenth of the population of the nation, that I begin to think it about time that London made a claim for special representation. With a larger population than in the whole of Scotland, we shall have to consider one day whether London, with its Scots, Irish and English, is really getting a fair show in the legislation which this House passes and which, incidentally, arises from operations such as those mentioned in this Bill.
Those who sponsored this Amendment, purporting to relate to representation of trade unionists, have no right to speak for the trade unions of this country. They have no right whatever to speak for the road transport workers. There is not a union connected with the transport industry which has asked for this, or wants it. It is easy to see why. I have spent most of my trade union life fighting the conditions—the rotten conditions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says—under which road transport workers and others have had to work and live. In the course of building up the trade union organisation among road transport workers there has grown up a bitterness of recollection of the kind of things through which we had to go 20 or 30 years ago.
Then competition in the road transport industry was so fierce and employers were so difficult to make a deal with that the late Ernest Bevin had to get the Road Haulage Wages Board set up by Parliament before we could even begin to get any semblance of order in the wages and conditions under which long-distance haulage workers worked.
All that time we have been preaching to our friends in the country the necessity for bringing long-distance haulage under national control.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is a little far from the Amendment.

Mr. Gibson: I am coming to the point and I think it is fair to call attention to the background which resulted in the building up of a nationalised transport service, which is to be broken down by this Bill. With the history through which these men and the unions which represent them have gone, it cannot be reasonable to expect that at last, having seen some of their economic ideals achieved by nationalisation of the transport industry, they will wish to take part in a Disposal Board to get rid of them. In any case, we are not going to be hostages, as we should be if we were members of the Board.
Those who put down the Amendment have been a little too clever, and we are not falling for it as easily as all that. We object to people who have no right whatever to represent organised trade unionists putting down such an Amendment without discussing it with us and finding out our point
of view. The Opposition is opposed to a trade unionist being expected to take a seat on the Board to smash the organisation which he has spent his lifetime in his trade union helping to build up. I hope that the Committee will reject the proposal.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, at this stage accept a manuscript Amendment from this side of the Committee, for discussion with this Amendment, to provide that there should be upon the Board a representative of the Primrose League?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I cannot accept that.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that hon. Gentlemen on these benches had no right to speak for representative trade unions, but many of our constituents who voted for us are trade unionists.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are concerned at the moment not with the


general provisions of the Bill but with an Amendment relating to the constitution of the Board.

Sir W. Wakefield: I agree with you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I am sure it is desirable that it should be clear that my hon. Friends and I have a right to speak for our constituents, which is what I and my hon. Friends are doing.
I have an Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(c) one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of manufacturers of motor vehicles as the Minister thinks fit.

Mr. Lindgren: Those are the hon. Member's "constituents."

Sir W. Wakefield: The purpose of the Amendment is that when the disposal of the Road Haulage Executive fleet is carried out—

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. Ought not the hon. Gentleman to declare his interest in this matter?

Sir W. Wakefield: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, he will have ample opportunity of hearing all interests disclosed.
As to the purpose of the Amendment, we believe that the disposal of the large number of vehicles by the Road Haulage Executive should be done in as orderly a manner as possible and that it might hurt the production of new vehicles if large numbers of those vehicles were put on the market in a disorderly fashion. I speak from personal knowledge about this, because I am engaged in the production of motor vehicles. My hon. Friends and I want production to continue smoothly and we want there to be no unemployment.

Mrs. E M. Braddock: Hon. Members want plenty of profit as well.

Sir W. Wakefield: My hon. Friends and I have regard for the continued employment of those in the industry, and it seems desirable that there should be no interference with the smooth flow of production. Anyone with personal knowledge of production knows that if there is interference with the smooth flow, and unemployment is caused, costs go up and difficulties follow. It is suggested that

by having a representative on this Disposal Board who has an intimate knowledge of the day-to-day production position of the commercial motor vehicle industry, any difficulty which might arise by a too rapid disposal of vehicles might be overcome.

Mr. Austin Albu: Can the hon. Member explain how the disposal of vehicles will increase the total number of vehicles available in the country?

Sir W. Wakefield: The hon. Member must know that in the commercial motor vehicle industry at present there is difficulty in the disposal of new vehicles. Obviously, if a large number of secondhand vehicles are to be put on the market all at once that might lead to difficulties—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is on the wrong side"]—and all we seek to ensure is that such difficulties will be obviated. After all, the right hon. Gentleman who was the former Minister of Transport in the Socialist Government pointed out this very fact. I am merely drawing the attention of the Minister to the position, and asking that he will note the situation and give it sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Mitchison: Time is short and it is expedient to be frank. I say, quite bluntly, that this Board stinks to high heaven, and a smell more or less does not make very much difference. I will tell the Committee why I say it stinks to high heaven. So far as I can make out, its only job in the world is to get rid of a lot of lorries. Why on earth anybody in their senses should put on to such a Board as this representatives of the industry which is to buy these lorries passes my comprehension.
I can find only two possible explanations. One is that there has been some previous agreement between the hon. Gentlemen who promoted this Bill and the industry in question, for the mutual benefit of both of them; and the other is that the hon. Gentlemen who promoted this Bill had so little knowledge of business, and the industry in question, that this is the best they can think of. I have the highest possible regard for the intelligence of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and for that reason I prefer the first to the second of the two alternatives I have just stated.
It is not my business to interfere in Scottish matters. I would say only this,


and with diffidence. It seems very remarkable that hon. Members opposite who represent Scottish constituencies should so persistently reject what I should have thought the situation demanded, namely, the separate treatment of Scotland in this matter, and yet show a remarkable and a somewhat suspicious enthusiasm for the more modest step of a consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Let me again be quite frank. I doubt if any purpose is ever served by a consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not believe in consultations, and, quite frankly, I do not believe in the Secretary of State for Scotland. For those two reasons it seems to me that this Amendment is one of those bits of shadow boxing from the benches opposite which is supposed to attract some Scottish votes to the Tory Party. Beyond that I can see no reason for it, and no effect in it.
9.15 p.m.
I understand very completely the reason why not only the T.U.C. and trade unions should take no part in this Disposal Board but why no honest and independent person should particularly wish to be concerned with it. I object as a matter of freedom, as a matter of responsibility, to this Committee and as a matter of good government to the fact that we are now called upon to produce a Board, the members of which are designated with some particularity and about which there are Amendments on the Paper, knowing perfectly well that at the end of it all the Minister will appoint the chairman, and that the Minister and the chairman together can queer the pitch for the whole Board and all its proceedings. In those circumstances, I should be the first to admit that Amendments lose a little bit of their fervour.
It is all very well to have representatives of trade and industry; but the one Amendment to which I attach importance—speaking only for myself—is one to ensure that there should be someone who, with an expert eye, can keep watch over the financial proceedings of this precious Board. I support with enthusiasm the suggestion that upon this precious Board there should be some one with financial experience just to keep an eye on what is going on.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I intervene only because of the speech by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). I listened with great care to what he said, and I found the content of his speech deeply disturbing. I do not know whether he was a Member of the House of Commons before the war, perhaps as long as 20 years ago. I certainly was not here, but I used to attend occasionally.
My experience then was that when any subject came up in which there was a trade union content, whether it was the formation of a board or the preparation of a piece of legislation by which workers' conditions were affected, the Socialist Party leaped into the foreground in the hope and expectation that they would be afforded some representation. Today we find the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, for the first time in my experience, taking an alternative line, a line which I cannot describe as anything other than a dog-in-the-manger attitude.
The suggestion appears to be that because we on this side thought of the idea first, they will have nothing to do with it, or, alternatively, that because changes are being made in some idealised Socialist conception they will not allow the trade union movement to have anything to do with it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: Only one hon. Member can speak at a time.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The noble Lord says—and in the ordinary way I would agree—that it is wrong for the Labour Party to refuse when it is invited to go upon a board of this kind; but does the noble Lord realise that this is a piece of legislation which is wrecking a great national service which affects the work and the lives of the workers and trade unionists about whom he is talking? Does he expect them to accept representation on a board of this description?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman is reinforcing the speech of the hon. Member for Clapham. Both hon. Members referred to this Board and its work, as if it were going to—I think one hon. Gentleman used these words himself—wreck the whole conception of this scheme.
The only thing that is going to happen here is that certain workers on the roads


are going to change their employers, and there may be in some cases a change in the terms and conditions of their employment, although we hope that that is fully safeguarded in other Clauses of this Bill. I should have thought that the Socialist Party would have been tremendously keen to see that on this Board there was a representative of the trade union movement in order that he might watch over their interests and see that the future conditions of these workers were fully provided for.
But that does not seem to me to be the case. We have waited for some time to see whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and his hon. Friends put down any Amendments on the Order Paper to this effect. We expected that the Socialist Party would be the first to do this, as they always have been in the past, but none have done so, and we therefore ventured to do it. I am very glad that we have done, because it is of vital consequence to this industry, to the Commission and to the whole country that there should be trade union representation.
I cannot understand why the Socialist Party have been so backward about it, and the only thought that I have, in trying to find a reason for it, is that they are so wedded to the creation of a managerial system and so diverted by the hierarchy of the higher appointments that the interests of the workers and their rights have fallen away. One must thank Providence for the fact that another great party in our democracy can come along and fulfil some of the vast deficiencies in Left wing political thinking which are manifesting themselves in modern times.

Mr. H. Hynd: I have always had a great respect for the interventions of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), and, if I am to maintain that respect and believe that the remarks which he has just made are made sincerely, I can only say that I am sorry for his ignorance of the trade union movement and the conception behind it.
May I try in a word or two to explain to him what the difference is? When we get remarks like those we have had this evening from hon. Members opposite, we may get a certain amount of cynical amusement from them, because we did not hear speeches of that kind

when it was a question of advocating the admission of trade union representatives to real administrative bodies. If hon. Members opposite are sincere in what they have been saying, they will urge that there should be some trade union representation on the Commission and on bodies of that kind, but this is not an administrative body which we are discussing.
This is the Disposal Board to be set up in order to do a raw deal to the taxpayers of this country, a Board that is going to commit what we regard as a crime, and we do not wish the trade union movement to be made an accessory after the fact. It is a principle in our courts that anyone who is an accomplice in a crime is as guilty as the others, and the trade union representatives, I suppose, are intended by the Amendment to be blackened along with all the others in the dirty work which this Disposal Board is being called upon to perform.
May I say one final word about the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield)? When I asked him a perfectly proper question whether he was going to declare his interest, it was because I was surprised that any hon. Member who is so directly affected should have the audacity to claim that one member for his trade should be added to the Board. There are quite enough private interests represented on this Board as it is, and to add another interest so directly involved would, I think, make the thing even worse. But, as my hon. Friend has just said, the Board is so badly constituted already that one more addition to it could not make it very much worse.
But this suggestion that there should be a trade union representative on the Board really needs a little explanation, and I hope that what has been said by hon. Members on this side of the Committee who are trade unionists will make it quite clear that, while trade unionists have not in any way altered their claim that the trade union movement should be represented on executive and administrative bodies, they do not propose to fall into the trap and be associated with this Board.

Mr. David Renton: The arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite with regard to the Amendments


we have been discussing disclose that they are basing them on two completely erroneous assumptions. The first is that the employees of the Road Haulage Executive have been completely contented up to the present, and the other that they will be discontented in the future.
I will venture to deal with both those assumptions. This matter arises especially, of course, out of the interruption by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) during the speech of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke).
What are the facts in regard to the first assumption? They are that in 1951 the Road Haulage Executive suffered a wastage of its stock of nearly 30 per cent.

Mr. Lindgren: What about the railways?

Mr. Renton: If the hon. Member will turn to the accounts of the Commission for last year, he will find that the railways suffered a wastage of less than 20 per cent., so that one has to compare a wastage of nearly 30 per cent. with one of less than 20 per cent.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, what this has to do with the Amendments we are now discussing?

The Deputy-Chairman: As far as I can judge at the moment, very little.

Mr. Renton: With respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, the position is that one of the Amendments we are discussing, and one on which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) spoke, proposes that the trade unions should be represented. It has been part of the case of hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Further to that point of order. There is no reference at all to the trade unions.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already said that so far as I can judge the hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendments.

Mr. Renton: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I am. I have not attempted to describe every link in the chain in view of the need to save time if possible, but as I have been asked to do so, I must.
The position is this. Hon. Members opposite have contended that the terms of this Bill were contrary to the interests of the trade unions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and others on this side of the Committee felt that if there was anything at all in that assumption, which I do not admit, then one of the ways of overcoming it was for the trade unions to be represented on the Disposal Board.
But, even after having reached that stage, hon. Members opposite still persist that the Disposal Board should not go to work at all because of the discontent that would be created among the workers as opposed to the content which exists among them at the moment. I am merely trying to say that both those assumptions are wrong, and, therefore, I submit with respect that I am in order.
It is a fact that the Road Haulage Executive suffered a wastage of nearly 30 per cent. last year, and to my mind that very high figure of wastage proves two things conclusively.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. I really must protest, Mr. Hopkin Morris. You have ruled that these matters were not relevant to these Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now addressing his argument, as I understand it, to the fact that the trade union movement would be justified in having a member on the Disposal Board. So long as he does that, it is in order, but to go into the general position would not be in order.

Mr. Renton: I have established the fact, which is wilfully overlooked by hon. Members opposite, and I propose to leave it like that.
Hon. Members opposite have conceived the catch-phrase "Job lots for the boys" and they have imitated us in a sincere form of flattery when they did so, because we used to talk about "Jobs for the boys." The fact that we have this Disposal Board at all is clear proof that there will be no question whatever of job lots for the boys in this case. But, unfortunately, hon. Members opposite live in a dream world of their own, a world in which they believe that all trade unionists vote Socialist, which they do not, a world in which they believe that all Socialists


favour nationalisation, which they do not, and also a world in which they believe that all trade unionists favour nationalisation, and they certainly do not.
9.30 p.m.
One has read this morning of an active trade unionist who has tried to gather together those fellow workers of his who do not believe in nationalisation and he has managed to bring over 60,000 of them together. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whatever number he has got together, the over-politically-minded members of the trade unions cannot take it and they are now trying to turn him out.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not see what this has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I am trying to deal with the suggestion that this Clause is a manifestation of the principle, if it be one, of "Job lots for the boys." That allegation has been made from the other side of the Committee and, with respect, I should have thought that I was entitled to answer it.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) came to the Third Reading of the Transport Bill which became the Act, he thanked the Opposition for the constructive suggestions we had managed to make for the improvement of the Bill, even though we vitally disagreed with its principle. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be in a position to thank the present Opposition in the same way, to the same extent and with the same sincerity, when we come to the conclusion of our debates on this Bill.

Mr. D. Jones: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), as usual, seems to imagine that this side of the Committee is living in a dream world. If he believes that all the road hauliers, all the businessmen of this country want this Bill he had better read again the document circulated by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), seeking to argue the case for trade unionists becoming members of the Board, suggested that when a Bill becomes law everybody then gives of his best. But the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works does not believe that, because on 17th May, a newspaper

said this of a speech he made in Middlesbrough:
He strongly criticised suggestions that the Government should consult the British Road Transport Commission before de-nationalising road transport. 'We are not likely to get any good advice from them at all, because they were put there by our enemies.'
I was glad to hear the Minister of Transport pay tribute to the people whom his right hon. Friend said a few months ago the party opposite did not trust.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon talks about a trade unionist who comes from Newcastle and who is chairman of the local Conservative Association. The hon. Member for Dumfries sought to argue a case, but I do not know which case he was arguing, because he has his name to an Amendment to increase the size of the Board from six to seven, and he also has his name to an Amendment to add one member after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and another Amendment to which he has his name seeks to add one member nominated by the trade unions.
How is it possible for the Minister to increase the Board from six to seven and then make both of the appointments, I do not quite understand. The Amendment does not ask that the trade unions shall be consulted. What the Amendment says is that:
One member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade unions as the Minister thinks fit.
And judging by the glee with which he produced the telegram on the Second Reading of this Bill from the Anti-Nationalisation Society of Newcastle, that is probably the only trade union that he will consult.
This Disposal Board has nothing to do with conditions of employment at all, and trade unionists would indeed be simple and foolish if they were to lend themselves to the machinations of this Board so that when its work is seen in the country they would be charged with some of the responsibility. Of course, the trade unions want representation on administrative bodies, but this Board has no administrative work at all. All that it seeks to do is to act as a watchdog on behalf of the Minister, to see that the vehicles are disposed of, and to make quite sure that they are disposed of to the people to whom the Minister intends that they shall be disposed.
The Minister makes quite certain that at least three members of the Board are to have indirect interest in road transport. But Clause 2 (7) says:
A member of the Board who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in any transaction….
That can only mean if he is interested in that particular transaction which is to be recorded in the minutes. It does not indicate that they cannot be interested in transactions of their friends. It does not indicate that a representative of the Road Haulage Association cannot look after the members of the Road Haulage Association, and, in that way, we are likely to find that this Board doing what the Minister wants it to do, and that is to dispose of these vehicles as quickly as possible at any old price that he can get. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it means that.
The Minister himself has admitted this afternoon that he believed that they were going to dispose of these vehicles in nine months. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said, 'hoped.'"] That was probably wishful thinking. It took over four years to bring these 4,000 vehicles together. The Minister now believes that by packing this Board in this way they are going to dispose of these vehicles in nine months. Some of his hon. Firends behind him, including the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), now want to drag in the trade unions to share the guilt. The trade unions are not going to share it.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: Hon. Members opposite have accused some of us of a lack of sincerity in the support of this Amendment. Speaking with the utmost sincerity, I do support it and I beg that the Committee will bear with me while I say why I take this sincere view.
After all, the House approved on Second Reading, in essence, the existence of a Disposal Board for the disposal of these units, and the question which I would most respectfully address to hon. Members opposite is, "Assuming that there is this Disposal Board approved by the House, would you or would you not rather have upon that Board representatives of the trade unions?" I understand that the view that is put is, "No, because they would be tarnished."
If hon. Members opposite have been saying, "We would not advise any trade unionist to back up that which the House in principle has already decided because we do not approve of it, then I must confess my respect for their view would be diminished. But I do not believe that they are urging that.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the hon. and learned Member remember the attitude of Steel House and its representatives towards the Iron and Steel Act?

Mr. Hylton-Foster: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. I speak with sincerity. I am appealing to hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee to bear with me while I do so because I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) in saying that the work of the Board will have nothing to do with conditions.
In the light of the terms of this Bill, I cannot agree with him. I do not believe that is correct. I beg the hon. Member to look at the provisions of the Bill which say that the conditions whereby transport units shall be sold will, in effect, be subject to the approval of this Board and that the conditions under which units are sold are conditions involving acceptance by the purchaser of rights and obligations of the Commission. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where does the hon. and learned Member find that?"] I will tell the hon. Member in a moment.

Mr. D. Jones: The obligations, as I understand the matter—perhaps the Minister will, when he speaks, correct me if I am wrong—are obligations so far as licensing is concerned, and have nothing whatever to do with conditions of employment.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I am obliged to the hon. Member, because that intervention gives me the chance of putting my interpretation, upon which I ask his view. The conditions are to be found in Clause 3, which will, in effect, require the approval of this Board,
and the specified conditions may include conditions whereby, as between the purchaser and the Commission, the purchaser takes over such rights and obligations of the Commission, whether under contract or otherwise, as may be specified, being rights and obligations connected with the subject matter of the purchase.


There is nothing to do with licensing in that. I conceive that to cover obligations imposed upon the purchaser under the supervision of the Board, if the Commission wishes, for the purpose of protecting the existing employees.

Mr. P. Morris: Mr. P. Morris rose—

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive my not accepting an intervention. I have not a clue as to what the Minister's view is; I am stating my own; I am offering it as a sincere view and I do not wish to take up too much time.
Hon. Members have been emphasising their anxiety, in connection with this Bill, and I have been listening to them with sympathy for their anxiety, that proper working conditions and the like will never be obtained in this industry if the units are too small. Who will ultimately govern whether units are too small? Ultimately,
the Disposal Board. Or, again, what of the position so familiar to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee in which transport workers are associated with some road haulage depot—and we all have road haulage depots in our constituencies—maintenance workers and people of that kind? In my belief they are vitally concerned about not having to remove geographically if disturbing them in that way can be avoided.
I confess that because of that kind of consideration, size of units, rights and obligations and conditions of service. I should like to see a trade union representative on that Disposal Board. For that reason, I beg hon. Members opposite to support this Amendment for putting a new ingredient into the Board. As for the idea that someone would be tarnished for afterwards taking part in what this House on Second Reading has said should be done, I am sure that no Member of this Committee would ever support that view.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite sure that a number of hon. Members who have taken part in this discussion or who wish to take part in it are actuated by a desire to improve the Disposal Board. I know that the Opposition regard the Board with dislike, but I also realise that quite a number of them have accepted reluctantly the fact that there will probably be a Disposal Board and are anxious to try to improve

its composition. That is one of the features of our Parliamentary discussions or which the Government of the day, from whichever party it may be drawn, has been entitled to rely.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked me by inference why we did not adopt the same procedure as did the Labour Government in 1947–48 by calling into action the Transport Arbitration Tribunal, which they set up under Section 105 of the 1947 Act. The functions of this Tribunal were in part, though I recognise not wholly, of a judicial nature. They had to deal with questions of payment of compensation, and it is true that in certain cases where disputes arose between a haulier and the Commission, the Tribunal were called upon to adjudicate. I understand that a number of borderline cases were referred to them.
The situation here is wholly different from that which was created by the 1947 Act. Then everybody who went over 40 miles or the majority of those whose activities were over 40 miles, were almost en bloc taken over by the Commission, and it was in large part a judicial problem to settle the terms on which they were taken over, whether they should be taken over or whether the bulk of their business did not qualify them to be taken over, or forced the Commission to take them over.
But this is a different proposition altogether, and I am quite sure that the members of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal would not regard themselves as qualified to carry out a process of this kind. It demands a body of experts used to the industry who will be in a position to understand how the question of the disposal of these assets can best be solved as business propositions, and it is something altogether beyond the functions or scope of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal.
As I said, I know the Opposition dislike the constitution of the Disposal Board. It is the view of the Government that there should be an obviously independent Board. We shall come later to one or two criticisms that have been advanced. I have paid my tributes to the British Transport Commission and they are all quite genuine. For the life of me I cannot understand why it must be


assumed that if one interferes with somebody's way of doing business there cannot be harmonious relation between that person and the business, and in this case that there cannot be such relations between the Minister and the Commission. If that should be so, the Opposition would have very few friends in the country, and I personally gladly acquit them of being in any such situation,
It is asking too much of the British Transport Commission that they should take a completely detached view of the obligation to dispose of their road haulage assets, and I suggest it is not fair to the Commission to leave them such a wide discretion in matters where they have such a large and obvious personal interest. More or less comparable with that would be if the Socialists in the 1947 Act, when drawing up Clauses 39 to 54, had taken over by compulsion all the long-distance hauliers, leaving the date and speed of acquisition to be decided by the road hauliers themselves. Then perhaps we might not have had the situation which we are now obliged to undo.
Two other Amendments of great substance are to be called. We have had in general a wide debate on the composition of the Board, and it might well be that I should make one or two general references. It is the purpose of this Board to approve the general lines on which the British Transport Commission are to carry out their duties under the Bill and sell their existing property, to approve the constitution of the units, and to maintain close control over the process, including the grouping of the assets for the purpose of sale. It is, in our opinion, desirable that it should be a small Board. No one would quarrel with the proposal that the Minister should have some power of appointment. Two members are to be appointed by the Minister. We believe that we have fairly divided up the interests who should be consulted in the further composition of the Board.
If there are some people who feel that the British Transport Commission should have more than one member, I can assure them that, under the provisions of the Clause, if there is a dispute between members of the Board, the chairman, or the vice-chairman in his absence, can

refer to me the matters in dispute. I cannot believe that if the representative of the Commission takes a strong view on an important matter, it would not be almost automatic that that matter would come to the Minister.
If it is said that the Minister is incapable in this regard of arriving at a fair judgment, that is an unworthy observation to make in this Committee, bearing in mind in particular that the whole fabric of the 1930 Act throws upon the Minister, from whichever side of the House he may come, a quasi-judicial function which no one has ever suggested has ever been improperly used. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal, if you decide, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) —

Mr. D. Jones: Does the Minister conceive it to be the business of the Disposal Board to see that the purchasers of the vehicles observe statutory conditions of employment and all the rest of it, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster)?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. and learned Friend did not say that. I understood him to say—I hope I am not misquoting him—that it would fall upon the Disposal Board, under the next Clause, to take into account the conditions of employment and the welfare of the men, and no doubt their further employment. It would be very unwise to say that there would be an obligation on the purchaser to employ the man who was working on the lorry before. If that were said, and the Disposal Board disposed of the lot, then only would the rather offensive charge that we were selling the men with the lorries have an element of truth in it.
When we get to Clause 3 I will give a careful and considered statement on the observation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster). That will fall on Monday. I will certainly deal in greater detail then—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester) rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Wait a moment. I must make a brief reference to the Amendment that we are considering. We have other Amendments to consider. As


I have said, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the question of the two representatives of the A, B and C licensees who we feel should be represented on the board.
Now I come to the two concluding points. The first deals with the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) and by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I am very much impressed by their arguments. There is a great deal to be said for the arguments that they advanced. I have been throughout, at all stages, ready and anxious to have talks with the trade unions on this matter and similar matters. They have not, for reasons that they no doubt think adequate, acceded to my request up to now. I do not think that that is due to me personally, despite the rather ungenerous and unexpected remarks made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I can certainly say this: Long before the hon. Member ever thought, I imagine, of coming to this House, I, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour had the happiest relations with representatives of labour who are now in prominent positions in their own movement.
I do not know whether the trade unions will accept the present situation. I am prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friends, to increase the composition of the Board by one, and to extend an invitation to the trade unions to nominate a list from which the Minister will appoint a member.

Mr. Sparks: Which trade unions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As soon as we can establish proper conversational relations with the unions concerned, we shall make up our minds which is the proper body. I take it that the Trades Union Congress in matters of this kind normally speaks for the movement as a whole. I am sure the trade unions will make up their own minds on this. I am not sweepingly impressed by what has been said on their behalf, or so-called behalf, here in the House of Commons. I think they will judge it on its merits. I seem to have read recently that when some hon. Gentlemen have attempted to dictate to trade unions, there were some rough words at a seaside resort the gist of which was, "You watch your words in Parliament. We have the money." It is not altogether

impossible, therefore, that the trade unions will come to quite a different conclusion from that reached by some of their self-appointed—

Mr. Ernest Davies: This trade union point is important, and I appreciate the Minister giving way. He said that the trade unions had not yet accepted his invitation to consult with them. It has appeared in the Press that he is meeting them this week, I believe on Friday. Is it so or not, because if it is, surely it means that they have agreed to meet and consult him?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand from nods in another part of the Committee, to which I cannot now refer, that this is now harmoniously arranged and I am delighted to hear it. This will be a matter to which I shall address myself as soon as we have our talks later in the week.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) urged that there should be more trade unionists on the British Transport Commission. That is a rather surprising comment if in fact it is this Government, and this Government alone, which, in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, has not done enough to secure trade union representation. We have no responsibility for the composition of the British Transport Commission and if hon. Gentlemen did not succeed in convincing their own Government of the need for that, I am afraid they must have failed in their elementary task.
One last point. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) asked whether we would put on the Board a representative of the manufacturers of motor vehicles. I cannot believe that some of the fears to which he gave expression will be found to have much substance. It is the purpose of this Bill to provide for road haulage to play an appropriate and expanding part in national transport, but I cannot see that there is any cogent reason why a representative of this great industry should be on the Board. Although I dislike having to say "no" to my hon. Friend, the answer must be an emphatic "no."
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland explained our point of view in regard to Scotland. I will certainly do my utmost to see that


one of the representatives of the various interests appointed is a Scotsman. It is almost certain that that will be so. I am not able to accept the Amendments from the other side of the Committee, although I accept the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke).

Mr. Alfred Barnes: I notice that the Minister, in replying to various points raised on these Amendments, has dealt with the relationship between the Disposal Board, the British Transport Commission and himself. I must confess that I was hoping to discuss that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." However, as the Minister has now introduced that matter, I think I shall be in order in referring to it. The mere statement that an independent body is necessary is not in itself a justification for the establishment of the Disposal Board. The Minister ought at least to treat the Committee with more respect than simply to give the blunt statement, and he should give some evidence as to why that is necessary.
10.0 p.m.
The Minister said that the Transport Commission would wish there to be a body of this description as it could not be expected to dispose of its own assets. Those assets do not belong to the Commission. They are public assets, and the Commission represents a body of persons, with whom we in this country are familiar, who are appointed from time to time to discharge public and responsible functions. They do this without fear or favour, and it represents no personal advantage to them. For a Minister of the Crown to state that a body of persons like the Transport Commission would otherwise regard any responsibility that Parliament imposed upon them and would treat the assets as personal property, does not represent a true and correct appreciation of the position.
We are dealing with a very important problem and principle. Let us look at the mechanics of the problem that the Committee are now deciding. Earlier this evening, the Minister expressed the hope of the Government that this vast amount of property would be disposed of within 12 months. What is this property that the Government anticipate will be dispersed by sale within the next 12 months?
That property represents a network of co-ordinated separate business units. The British Road Services represent a type of organisation with which we are familiar in commerce: the chain store type of organisation. In the past four years, hundreds of depots have been established throughout the country, representing geographical and commercial areas for the purpose of handling goods. Now, we are dealing with a problem which the Disposal Board will have to handle and the breaking up of this sum and its dispersal.
Surely it is quite clear to anyone with a knowledge of a problem of this kind that the Disposal Board, a body of persons brought together within a very short space of time by the Minister after consultation with various organisations—I am not for the moment concerned whether they represent interests in the sale of the property—represent a small group of persons brought together to decide on the dispersal and disposal of this property, about which they cannot under any circumstances have any practical knowledge.
As the only body that has a practical knowledge of the organisation—it is clearly indicated in the subsequent Clauses—the British Transport Commission has the responsibility of all the preparatory work leading up to the decision of the Disposal Board. They have to determine the types of unit and to assemble them together so that they present practical elements of sale.
What is the point of the practical element of sale? We know from our earlier information that the Minister anticipates that of the 30,000 or 40,000 vehicles on sale, existing A and B operators might make a purchase of up to about 10,000 of these vehicles. It is quite clear that some operators might want one, five, 10 or even 15 of these vehicles. They will have been assembled under this network of organisation in, roughly, units of 50. Therefore, the problem of breaking up to meet all these individual sales is bound to represent an intricate task of examination on the part of the Commission.
The Commission, when it has done all this work, has to submit it to the Disposal Board. On the admission of the Minister, if there is a difference of opinion between the Commission, which has all the practical knowledge of the situation, and the


Disposal Board has been brought in to give an executive decision overriding the practical body, the Minister is called in to decide. It is quite clear that the Disposal Board will be in a position, in the vast majority of cases, of being dependent on the practical knowledge of the British Transport Commission and its practical officers who know all the detail of this organisation.
If there is a clash it will not be a clash of knowledge or practical business judgment, but a clash of interest that will develop and which will go to the Minister for decision. I submit that if that is the case there is no practical case for the Disposal Board. The Commission has the responsibility of carrying out a decision of Parliament if this Bill is passed, and the Minister, with the practical knowledge in his Department which is far greater than that of the Disposal Board, will ultimately have to give a decision if there is a difference. There is no reason why it should not go direct to the Minister.
I now come to the point of whether we can depend on the integrity of the Transport Commission to carry out its task of discharging any duty Parliament may impose upon it whether it agrees or not. It is untenable for the Minister to come to this Committee and humiliate a body like the Transport Commission. This is not a Disposal Board in the ordinary sense; this is putting bailiffs into the Commission. That is the morality behind the proposal we are considering and, in my view, the whole process will undermine the moral authority of Parliament.
If we take the personnel of the Transport Commission, what person can the Minister or the Government put on to this Disposal Board who has greater knowledge or greater reputation than the Chairman of the Commission? He represents a lifetime of service in our Civil Service, he has a remarkably good record in electricity development and has handled the whole of our war transport operations. He has now had three or four years' experience as the head of this organisation.
I frankly admit that the Minister appreciated in his statement to the Committee that the Transport Commission did not consider this procedure workable. The Commission gave advice to the

Minister, which they were bound to give if it represented their considered judgment, that the machinery here was not practicable. I think that what I have said justifies that. Although they stated that to the Minister, that is an entirely different thing from saying that they would not carry out any decision which the Government had conveyed to them or which Parliament authorised.
The time we have spent discussing whether there should be five, six, seven or eight members of the Disposal Board could have been better occupied if we had put the Minister on the spot and made him justify, in the light of common sense and the sense of decency in public life, why we should have a body of this description at all.
What is the body to do? It has to disperse a network of organisations. If we are to retain an efficient road transport organisation, it is essential that it should be the Transport Commission which determines the type of unit to be sold. If the units and depots are broken up we shall once again throw our road transport industry into chaos. That can be dealt with in another way. The Minister has not justified the appointment of the Disposal Board, and I hope that we shall defeat the Clause when we vote on it.

Mr. H. Morrison: A few more words ought to be said before we part with this matter. We take the view that the composition of the Disposal Board is extraordinary and contrary to the public interest. The Government is supposed to be one Government. Clause 16 (2) of the Iron and Steel Bill provides that the agency, the body to conduct disposal operations in the case of the iron and steel industry, shall consist of a chairman and not fewer than three nor more than six other members to be appointed by the Treasury.
In that case no specific interests or qualifications are laid down as attaching to the members of the disposal agency. That will not make us support the iron and steel industry disposal agency, but, at any rate, the members are appointed on the responsibility of the Treasury and no definitions of interests are attached to them. I should like to know why that method has been employed in the case of the iron and steel industry and yet in


the case of the Disposal Board for the road transport industry the Bill provides that there shall be a chairman appointed by the Minister.
The chairman is in the exceptional position that if the Board disagrees about anything he can refer the matter to the Minister for decision. That gives the chairman extraordinary powers and brings the Minister in to decide as a political Minister. It attaches extraordinary powers to the chairman because he has a discretion, in the event of disagreement, about what he shall or shall not refer to the Minister.
Only one of its members is to be appointed from among persons nominated by the Commission. Our view is that if any specific bodies are to have the right of nomination, the Commission has a special right. As against that, I understand that it is said by the Government that the Commission is an interest and, therefore, ought not to have strong representation on the body. But what is the Commission's interest? It is the public interest. It is not a private interest. The Commission is a public authority and, obviously, has an interest to do as well as it can for itself and for the public in the sale of the vehicles, whereas private people are bound to feel that it would wish to do well for the private purchasers of the vehicles from a public authority.
10.15 p.m.
It is typical of the mentality of Conservatives that if they are dealing with a public authority they assume it is an unhealthy and a sectional interest, but when they are advancing the rights of private interests they think that will further the general well-being of the community—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I understand that my last observation is supported by some hon. Members opposite, which is an interesting admission.
One member of the Board is to be appointed by the Commission only. Then it is provided that
One member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade and industry as the Minister thinks fit.
That means the employing interests and the capitalist interests. Then, one member shall be appointed

after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding A or B licences…
and one to represent C licence holders. So here come the direct vested interests on the body concerned.
I admit that it is provided under the Clause that they must not vote where they have a direct personal interest. But they cannot easily mentally divorce themselves from the general interest of the trade which they are selected to represent on the Disposal Board. It is not an easy thing to do. We have an Amendment on the Order Paper, which, unfortunately, under the Guillotine will not be reached. It provided that nobody who had been in this business for "X" years before or after the passing of the Act should be eligible to be a member of the Board.
That is good; that is right. After all, years ago Parliament passed legislation which put some fetters on local councillors regarding their conduct as members of a local authority on matters in which they had an interest. I think that principle was right. But what is this Government and this Parliament doing when, that having been done in the case of the local authorities, they are now specifically elevating interested persons to a position of decision in respect of a business with which their whole life-time has been associated?
That is the composition and we do not like it. During the debate on the White Paper I said that it was typical of the mentality of this Government that in the proposed composition of the Disposal Board they had completely forgotten organised labour, or they deliberately did not want it put in. I said I was not prejudicing whether organised labour wished to be represented or not. But it is significant that the Government never thought of putting it down, at any rate for consideration.
Now I understand that the Minister has indicated he proposes to accept an Amendment which would provide for one representative of organised labour being appointed to the Commission, namely, the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset. South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and other hon. Members which provides that
one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade unions as the Minister thinks fit.


I understand that the Minister is meeting the T.U.C. and trade union representatives this week. I have seen it stated in the Press, and the Minister now knows it. I was astonished to learn that the Minister did not know he was to meet them this week. There is either something wrong with his Department or something wrong with the right hon. Gentleman, because it is an important consultation and the Minister was led to be somewhat critical of the T.U.C. and trade unions tonight in that they had not already seen him, when, in fact, apparently an interview had already been arranged when they would discuss matters of mutual interest.
It is not for me to give a final, authoritative decision about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Your hon. Friends have."]—because the Minister will hear from the unions or the T.U.C.. But I think it right to tell the Committee that I have been informed by representatives of the T.U.C. and the trade unions, and we all agree that it is for them to decide, rather than the Parliamentarians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, because it
is their business. I have been informed
by the T.U.C. and representatives of the unions that they have given consideration to the question of representation on this Board. They have come to the conclusion that, owing to the nature of the operations in which the Board will be engaged and the possible consequences of a serious character to the work-people engaged in the separate undertakings or the industry generally, they would feel embarrassed in serving on this Board. That is my information, coming straight from the representatives of the T.U.C. and the unions of their own volition. It is entirely their own decision.
I suggest to the Minister that it would be well to leave the Amendment to which I have referred over until the Report stage. If he accepts it tonight, he may be in the position of having to take it out on Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The Government cannot compel the trade unions to be represented. I remind the Committee that the Amendment says that
one member shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies representative of trade unions as the Minister thinks fit.
The House of Commons cannot compel the trade unions to submit nominations or to make suggestions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much hope that the invitation will be accepted. If it is not, there is the provision that,
The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy among the members thereof….
Therefore, no harm will be done if the Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Morrison: I really do not think that this is a wise course for the Minister to take. I urge him to leave himself more time for reflection. First, the question of trade unions being represented was completely forgotten or set aside. Now the Minister is going to the other extreme, notwithstanding the warning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Warning?"] What are hon. Members excited about? If I had it straight from the representatives of the T.U.C. and the unions that they did not wish to be represented on this Disposal Board, surely it was my elementary, proper and decent duty to warn the Committee that that was so. Hon. Gentlemen should not sit on the benches opposite merely conveying an expression which is not particularly conducive to success among their constituents if the people could only see them.
I have not long in which to speak. The Guillotine will fall soon. I thought it right to tell the Committee about this. I suggest to the Minister that he would lose nothing by not accepting the Amendment tonight. The Government cannot very well allow an Act of Parliament to go through making a provision for certain people to be represented if the Minister knows, and I think that he will know as, in fact, I know now, that they do not propose to accept the representation. That is making a mockery of legislation.
I should have thought that it would be better, as a matter of courtesy, to ascertain from the T.U.C. and the trade unions whether they propose to accept the invitation. If not, I should have thought that the Minister would not go forward with the suggestion unless he has it in mind—and I should not think that he has—to go outside official T.U.C. and trade union channels to get the trade representation on the Board. I should not have thought that that was very likely.
We propose to vote against Clause 2 and to take such other votes as we can, and as we think expedient. We think that the Clause is wrong in its structure. It is a Clause which lacks public spirit


and that it is a bad provision. In any case, we do not like the Disposal Board. If disposal is to be done best we think that
it should be done by the Commission itself. Therefore, we oppose the Clause.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to say that I anticipate that the Opposition are proposing to divide on the Amendment, and if they are, of course, then the Amendment which I have said I would accept will not fall for decision by the Committee, and in those circumstances I will introduce, in those words or in suitable other words, that Amendment on Report.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion as regards tonight, because it will get us all out of a difficulty, but surely the Minister is not going to say now, before he has met the trade union representatives, that whatever they say and whatever their attitude is, he is going to put down this Amendment on Report? Surely, he should listen to what they are going to say? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We want to know from the Minister. As one who has had some experience in the handling of these matters, I want to intimate to the Minister that he is—[Interruption.] The noble Lord does not know anything about trade unions, anyway. I suggest to the Minister that he is needlessly running a risk, and that surely it would be better for him to tell us that this is not proposed finally, and that he will not commit himself until he has had the views of the T.U.C. and the trade unions. I ask the Minister to give us that assurance, instead of sitting there with cynical indifference.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I deny sitting here with cynical indifference, but if I wished to take lesson in that, I could not go to anybody better than the right hon. Gentleman. What, in fact, I have said is that I have told my noble Friend and my hon. Friends behind me that I will accept their Amendment, and I have no intention of going back on that undertaking, and that if the Amendment is not called this evening, we will take steps to introduce it on Report. I repeat that I hope that the trade unions will be disposed to appoint representatives, and, if not, the Disposal

Board can go ahead, for the reasons I have already given to the Committee.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. I thought, Sir Charles, that you were putting the Amendment in line 10, to leave out "six" and insert "seven." You collected the voices on this side of the Committee, which were "Aye."

The Chairman: Everybody said "Aye" and therefore the word "six" stands parts of the Clause.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, Sir Charles, we were in a slight muddle as a Committee, but there were at least two hon. Members who were quite clear—the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and myself. You put the question whether the word "eight" should stand part—

The Chairman: No, I put the Question, "That 'six' stand part of the Clause." The Amendment was to leave out "six" and to insert "eight," but we never got as far as "eight."

Mr. Callaghan: I apologise. I was in the middle of a sentence, and I hope to have permission to finish it, but it is the prerogative of the Chair to stand up at any time.

The Chairman: Perhaps it was difficult for hon. Members to hear what I said. and I want to put it right.

Mr. Callaghan: We did agree, when your predecessor, Mr. Hopkin Morris, was in the Chair, that we were going to take the whole of the Amendments on this page and the two following Amendments at the top of the succeeding page. May we be quite clear what we are now discussing?

The Chairman: The Amendment which I have put, and to which everybody said "Aye," was in line 10, to leave out "six" and to insert "eight." I put the Question, "That 'six' stand part of the Clause"; everybody said "Aye," and there it is. We cannot go back on it. The next Amendment is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes).

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order, Sir Charles. The original discussion on the Amendment in line 10, leave out "six," and insert "eight," preceded for some technical reason the first


Amendment, in my name, in line 10, leave out "six," and insert "seven." The Amendment to insert "eight." having fallen, will you not now put my Amendment?

The Chairman: I cannot possibly do that. The Committee has agreed to "six" standing part of the Clause, and we cannot alter that at this stage.

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on Clause 2.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 271.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Donner, P. W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Drayton, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Drewe, G.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Arbuthnot, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Duthie, W. S.
Kaberry, D.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eccles, Rt. Hon D. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Baker, P. A. D.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Baldock, Lt. Cmdr. J. M.
Erroll, F. J.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount


Banks, Col. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Barlow, Sir John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Leather, E. H. C.


Baxter, A. B.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fort, R.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Foster, John
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Martin


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Linstead, H. N.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gammans, L. D.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Birch, Nigel
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Bishop, F. P.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Low, A. R. W.


Black, C. W.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bossom, A. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
McCallum, Major D.


Braine, B. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Grimond, J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKibbin, A. J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Maj Niall (Dumfries)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Campbell, Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hay, John
Marples, A. E.


Carson, Hon. E.
Head, Rt. Hon A. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Channon, H.
Heath, Edward
Maude, Angus


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maudling, R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Brig F.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, A. H. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cranborne, Viscount
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Holt, A F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hopkinson, Rt Hon. Henry
Nicholls, Harmar


Crouch, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horobin, I. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Davies, Rt Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr N. J.
Odey, G. W.


Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A R.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)




Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Osborne, C.
Scott, R. Donald
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Partridge, E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Tilney, John


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Shepherd, William
Touche, Sir Gordon


Perkins, W. R. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Turton, R. H.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Vosper, D. F.


Pitman, I. J.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wade, D. W.


Powell, J. Enoch
Soames, Capt. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Speir, R. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Profumo, J. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Raikes, H. V.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Redmayne, M.
Stevens, G. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Renton, D. L. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Robertson, Sir David
Storey, S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Robson-Brown, W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Summers, G. S.
Wills, G.


Roper, Sir Harold
Sutcliffe, H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wood, Hon. R.


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
York, C.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Teeling, W.



Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oakshott.


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)


Adams, Richard
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Herbison, Miss M.


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hobson, C. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Holman, P.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Deer, G.
Houghton, Douglas


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Hubbard, T. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dodds, N. N.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Baird, J.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Balfour, A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bence, C. R.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Benn, Wedgwood
Edwards, Rt. Hon Ness (Caerphilly)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Benson, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Beswick, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Janner, B.


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Blackburn, F.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fornyhough, E.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Field, W. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Boardman, H.
Fienburgh, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Finch, H. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bowden, H. W.
Follick, M.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bowles, F. G.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Brockway, A. F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Keenan, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kenyon, C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, C. W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Glanville, James
Kinley, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Carmichael, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Champion, A. J.
Grey, C. F.
Lewis, Arthur


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lindgren, G. S.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Logan, D. G.


Coldrick, W.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacColl, J. E.


Collick, P. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McGhee, H. G.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
McInnes, J.


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hardy, E. A.
McLeavy, F.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hargreaves, A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hastings, S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Daines, P.
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean.







Manuel, A. C.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Mayhew, C. P.
Rankin, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mellish, R. J.
Reeves, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Messer, F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mikardo, Ian
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mitchison, G. R.
Rhodes, H.
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)


Monslow, W.
Richards, R.
Timmons, J.


Moody, A. S.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Tomney, F.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Morley, R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)
Usborne, H. C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Mort, D. L.
Ross, William
Wallace, H. W.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Webb, Rt Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mulley, F. W.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Weitzman, D.


Murray, J. D.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Nally, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wells, William (Walsall)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
West, D. G.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Short, E. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon John


O'Brien, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Oldfield, W. H.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
White, Mrs Eirene (E. Flint)


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E)


Orbach, M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Oswald, T.
Slater, J.
Wigg, George


Padley, W. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Paget, R. T.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, F. T.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pannell, Charles
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Parker, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Paton, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Pearson, A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Peart, T. F.
Stross, Dr Barnett
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Summerskill Rt. Hon. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Popplewell, E.
Swingler, S. T.
Yates, V. F.


Porter, G.
Sylvester, G. O.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.


Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BROWNSWOOD PARK POST OFFICE, STOKE NEWINGTON

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter of considerable concern to my constituents. I take it that the Assistant Postmaster-General will readily concede that it is the duty of the Post Office to provide proper facilities and, in so doing, to have regard to the needs of the population in each particular district. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman should be fully aware of the needs of the area for which I plead tonight, for it is adjacent to, or very near, his own constituency; and I venture to suggest that that knowledge should

make him fully aware of what I consider to be a scandalous state of affairs.
In the borough of Stoke Newington a sub-post office, known as the Browns-wood Park sub-office, which functioned for at least 38 years, was closed on 24th June, 1950. The reason given was that the occupier of the premises had notified the district postmaster that, because of the growth of private business, the sub-office could no longer be accommodated. That sub-office served an area of about 135 acres, with a population of about 8,000 people.
Since the date I have mentioned, there have been a considerable number of flats erected in the neighbourhood, and the Woodbury Down estate near there houses something like 6,000 persons. The sub-post office in the near vicinity of Riverside Road closed down in 1942, and has not since been re-opened. Thus, I suggest that this sub-office in the Brownswood Park area served a considerable residential district. During the last few years the population has been steadily increasing and the net result is that the population of a large area north of what is known as Stoke Newington Church


Street has been deprived of convenient postal facilities for a long period.
The nearest post offices are nearly a mile distant. In many cases it is necessary for residents to take a bus journey and in some cases two bus journeys to get to a post office. When one remembers that visits have to be made there by pensioners, and the many uses to which post offices are put, as well as the increased fares, it will be obvious that great inconvenience, considerable hardship and much expense are caused to thousands of people.
From the date that the sub-post office was closed more than two years ago, nothing has been done to remedy the situation. I say that deliberately. Considerable correspondence passed between the Town Clerk of Stoke Newington and the district postmaster. The usual reply was that the needs of the area were being borne in mind. In November, 1951, the excuse given was that a suitable candidate for the sub-postmastership had been obtained but until he was able to secure a trained assistant it would not be possible for him to take up the appointment and to arrange for a sub-post office to be opened on the premises. One notes the excuse about the trained assistant, as if the Post Office, with its establishment, could not find a trained assistant to serve the needs of a district of this character.
I put a Question to the Minister on 20th February of this year. I was told that the intention was to re-open the premises as soon as a suitable candidate and premises could be found. I then pointed out the disparity of the information with the letter to which I have referred, and I was told that I was misinformed, although I actually had a copy of the letter of November, 1951, written to the Town Clerk, in my possession, and pointed out that fact to the Minister.
In a letter dated 2nd April I was told—another excuse—that the amount of business transacted at the sub-office was Comparatively small, and would not warrant a departure from the normal arrangements for providing a public office on an urgency basis. What "comparatively small" means I do not know. What I know is that a considerable area with a considerable population has been deprived of post office facilities, and that

nothing has been done to supply them for more than two years.
I was about to raise this matter on the Adjournment in July of this year, but on the very day that it was to have been raised I was told by the Minister that arrangements had been made to re-open this office and that—to quote the Minister's words—
it will be brought into service as soon as the necessary preparations have been made.
Now I learn from a letter I have received, dated 31st October, that these arrangements have fallen through. The Minister says in his letter that he is
sorry to say, in spite of all our efforts, we have not been able to get an office opened, mainly because Mr. Sado"—
the gentleman to whom the premises belong—
has been unable to get the assistant he needs to help him to run the office. We have offered him temporary assistance, but we are quite unable in the present situation to contemplate running an office with our own staff as a permanent arrangement.
The matter does not stop there. The borough council suggested the provision of a mobile post office on one of the council estates. The answer was that the Post Office was unable to accept that idea. In the vicinity adjacent to these premises is a piece of land belonging to the Metropolitan Water Board. A temporary structure could be put up there.
So, it comes to this. First, the occupier of the premises, where this post office functioned for 38 years, is still ready to let it function, but we cannot get that done because the Post Office will not provide or help to provide a trained assistant. Secondly, even if these premises were not available, there is land adjoining where a temporary structure could be erected, and there is the council's idea of a mobile post office on one of the estates. There is no difficulty with regard to premises.
The difficulty here, whatever excuse is given, is that the Post Office will not provide or help to provide one trained assistant. I have been told, by way of excuse, that it is proposed to open a post office at a road called Blackstock Road. I am told it is proposed to open a post office on the Woodbury Down estate. Both ideas would offer no assistance. The sites are distant from this area and some time will elapse before it is done, anyway.
In the meantime, in this period of over two years, nothing has been done to assist in this case. I am glad to raise this matter. It is, of course, purely a constituency matter. I say the position is not good enough. I say excuses will not do. I desire to protest in the House, on behalf of thousands of people in the district, at the failure of the Post Office to do anything for this very considerable population and to remedy this grievance in any way.
Thirdly, the Post Office, with its resources, cannot say they cannot deal with this problem. I end as I began. It is the duty of the Post Office to provide facilities and it is wrong that hardship in inconvenience and expense should result because of the failure of the Post Office to deal with this matter.

10.53 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammons): Let me say, straight away, that I have every sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) in raising this matter. But I must correct his suggestion that the Post Office have not tried to do what he wants done. I think he might have told the House that what we are talking about is a sub-post office and not a Crown post office. There are, roughly, 24,000 post offices in this country, of which all but 1,700 are sub-post offices. It is in a sub-post office where the premises and the staff are
provided by the sub-postmaster. We have not closed a Crown post office. We are dealing with a case, unfortunately—and here I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents—of a sub-post office which has had to be closed.
It is true, as I will show, that although we propose to open an office in Black-stock Road, this will not give the Browns-wood Park people the same convenient service, which they have had in the past and which we would like to give them now. The trouble is—I think the hon. Gentleman might have said all this—that we have not been able to get anybody to take the Brownswood Park sub-post office on reasonable terms. There is nothing else standing in the way. It is not only in Brownswood Park where this has arisen. It has arisen in other parts, but it is not as bad as it was a few years ago.
Let me go over the history of this matter. There are, I believe, five shops only at Brownswood Park, and two of these shops
are owned by Messrs. Sado and King. It was Mr. Sado who, until 1945, ran the sub-post office in one of the shops. In that year, he gave it up because he could not get staff. The Post Office tried for some time to find a successor to him, but the field is somewhat limited because there are only five shops there.
We failed to get anyone to take the job, but so anxious was the Post Office to help that for five solid years we kept the sub-post office on what is known in Post Office parlance as an "in-charge" basis—that is, staffed by Post Office servants—at considerable loss to the Post Office, simply because we did not want the office to close.
This arrangement continued from 1945 until 1950, when Mr. Sado terminated it by giving the Post Office "the sack," terminating the Post Office's lease of the premises. We advertised the vacancy until 1951, and in May of last year Mr. Sado and Mr. King came back into the picture and offered to take on the sub-post office again. But once more the proposal fell through because Mr. Sado said he was unable to get the staff. We are very sorry about that, but that is what always happened. It is up to the sub-postmaster to get his staff; it is not up to the Post Office to get it for him. If we had to get staff for all the 22,000 or more sub-post offices in the country my job would be much more difficult even than it is today.
The next stage was in January of this year when Mr. Sado asked whether we would continue the office on an "charge" basis. We had to say that we could not do that, because, if we did it for Mr. Sado, we should have to do it for everybody, and if we put paid Post Office staff in every sub-post office which could not get staff on its own, I do not know what our financial position would be.
In March of this year the Stoke Newington Borough Council came into the picture, writing to the Post Office to say that they were very disappointed that the Post Office could not re-open the sub-post office and that they had someone in Blackstock Road who was willing to take on the vacant sub-postmastership. In


June of this year the Town Clerk submitted the name of yet another man in Blackstock Road. He used words which refute what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. He referred to Blackstock Road, not as a far distant place which was no use to the people living on Brownswood Park, but as a busy shopping centre much used by the residents of Brownswood Park.
In July of this year Mr. Sado came into the picture yet again, saying he was willing to be appointed sub-postmaster and that he thought he could get the staff. We at once closed with that offer and appointed him sub-postmaster. However, the whole business fell through once more because Mr. Sado could not get the staff.
Why it is that Mr. Sado cannot get staff I do not know, but he seems to have been extremely unfortunate. We have gone out of our way to help him. First of all, we raised the scale payment of that office to a much higher sum than it was before. As a result of representations made to me personally by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I gave orders to the Post Office that all in our power should be done to get the office going. We did something which I do not think we have done before and which I hope we shall not be asked to do very often. We actually gave Mr. Sado the addresses of one or two people who, in our opinion, might have liked to work for him. We offered to lend him staff until he could get staff of his own.
I suggest that there is nothing more that we could have done. It is scarcely representing the facts of the case for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Post Office have been cynical about the whole business. I do not believe the Post Office could have done any more than they have done. That is how the matter now stands. Quite frankly, I do not see very much chance of getting a post office in Brownswood Park unless either Mr. Sado changes his mind, or one of the other people who keep the Brownswood Park shops will take on the job. They have, of course, been approached but they are not willing.
We are not able to hold out any hope whatever of a Crown office in an area like this. Therefore, we are doing the next best thing. We are doing what the

Stoke Newington Borough Council suggested—getting on with the Black-stock Road proposal. The vacancy in Blackstock Road has been advertised. We have one candidate already and we hope to have more. A sub-post office in Blackstock Road is not all the Browns-wood Park people would like, but it is not as bad as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. It will mean that the Brownswood Park area will have five post offices within an area of 1,200 yards.

Mr. W. R. Williams: What is the annual emolument of the sub-post office which is now under consideration?

Mr. Gammans: It has been raised recently to £450. There is one at Gillespie Road about 1,000 yards away; one at Church Street, about the same distance; one at Finsbury Park about 1,100 yards; one at Newington Green about 1,175 yards; and one in Blackstock Road which is only 660 yards away.

Mr. Weitzman: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates, knowing this area as he must do, that it is grotesque to suggest that putting up a sub-post office in Blackstock Road will serve the needs of Brownswood Park. Is he saying that the Post Office, with all its resources cannot provide, or help to provide, a trained assistant which he knows perfectly well would solve the problem completely?

Mr. Gammans: However bad the Blackstock Road proposal is to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he is not supported by his own borough council.

Mr. Weitzman: That is not correct.

Mr. Gammans: They have written and asked that a sub-post office should be put there in default.
With regard to a trained assistant I do not know whether I have explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman the meaning of a sub-post office. It is not our business to find trained assistants at such offices. We have done everything we can to help Mr. Sado. We have kept the office going for five years. We have put him in touch with people who might be suitable, and offered to lend him someone in the meantime.
If we were dealing with a new area altogether, such as a satellite town or a big new housing estate, the present rule


under which we work is that we will not establish a new office within one mile of an existing one unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, as I have pointed out, the Blackstock Road office is only 600 yards away. What is more, if I may remind the hon. and learned Gentleman about this, we have arranged that stamps can be bought at Brownswood Park in Messrs. Sado and King's shop.
I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman the answer he wants. I should like to help his constituents. I suggest that he has exaggerated his case. He has not realised the exact type of office that we had at Brownswood Park. I am sorry that I cannot hold out any hope of being able to open an office there in the near future. I certainly would be most grateful for any help the hon. and learned Gentleman could give to the Post Office in the effort to get someone who is prepared to open an office there. I realise that people are suffering inconvenience, but I suggest

that we have done all that we possibly could to lessen that inconvenience and to provide people with some reasonable facilities.

Mr. Weitzman: Although I am indebted to the Assistant Postmaster-General for answering this debate, I should like to say that the position is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Certainly, the local council will not appreciate what the hon. Gentleman suggests has been done. Unfortunately, too much has been done merely in the way of writing letters making applications to people. I hope that the Post Office will wake up to the fact that they must look after the needs of the people in this district, which is an important part of an important area in London. I hope that the Minister will think again and see that something is done.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.